Bureaucracy 2: It's The New Natter
Well, you'd better not be thinking what I think you're thinking, because my answer is the same as always — no threesomes unless it's boy-boy-girl. Or Charlize Theron.
Harmony ,'First Date'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
Wolfram - Mar 04, 2003 2:51:18 pm PST #6772 of 10001
Visilurking
Jesse - Mar 04, 2003 2:51:34 pm PST #6773 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I say don't add anything to it, because if we don't require 50%+1 (still outstanding) then we don't require preferential voting.
Even if we do require 50%+1 we don't require preferential voting. There are different ways of doing things. I understand that they may be idiotic to some people, but they do exist.
John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:51:50 pm PST #6774 of 10001
OK but haven't I put my finger on something above?
If people are happy with "most votes wins" then all the stuff about preferential voting just disappears, poof! Pile of preferential vampire dust on the floor.
Preferential voting isn't required for votes with three or more options, it's required for votes with three or more options that need 50%+1.
If Most Votes Win, you can have a hundred options and still not need prefs.
And we still don't know what the will of the Buffista People was.
Because of confusion over the word "majority".
§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 2:53:14 pm PST #6775 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
Except in the case where two options get exactly the same number of votes.
Yes. Which was explicitly mentioned on the original ballot.
John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:53:34 pm PST #6776 of 10001
Even if we do require 50%+1 we don't require preferential voting.
[xpost but...]
But if we don't require 50%+1, we're not required even to discuss it. Count the votes. Unless two options have the exact same number, someone's won. It's over.
John H - Mar 04, 2003 2:54:24 pm PST #6777 of 10001
explicitly mentioned on the original ballot
And runoffs were the solution?
PaulJ - Mar 04, 2003 2:55:05 pm PST #6778 of 10001
Preferential voting isn't required for votes with three or more options, it's required for votes with three or more options that need 50%+1.
Nope. One can decide that, if no option gets 51%, no action should be taken. Or one can decide to go through a series of run-offs.
Don't try to sneak this one below us, you stealthy preference-supporter you. The Simplicity Police will catch you and sentence you to live in an infinite time-loop in Florida circa Dec. 2000.
§ ita § - Mar 04, 2003 2:55:32 pm PST #6779 of 10001
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
And runoffs were the solution?
No. It was a TBD. I'm just paranoid about already considered TBDs creeping onto this simple vote, so I'm projecting onto you something you may not have been saying.
Burrell - Mar 04, 2003 2:56:11 pm PST #6780 of 10001
Why did Darth Vader cross the road? To get to the Dark Side!
Question on the "vote" that begins tonight. Is it a vote, as in, should I vote for which definition of majority I would prefer to use in future votes? Or is it a poll simply asking me to indicate what I thought I was voting for when I voted? Because for me, those two questions have different answers.
Wolfram - Mar 04, 2003 2:57:35 pm PST #6781 of 10001
Visilurking
Are we still arguing over the "majority" poll? What hasn't been decided yet? Obviously preferential voting can't be on the poll because a) it isn't inherent in the word majority and b) a third option would be a logistically circular and paradoxical - The poll is to determine how to tally the results of a poll with more than two options - so you can't put more than two options on the poll or we won't know how to tally the results.