the phrasing as it stands is a little leading.

Grrrrr... I knew someone would say this and cloud the glow I had for the last five minutes. To be honest, I thought my wording of both options was leading. I think I made the first option sound more bureaucratically cumbersome than it really is. I did this on purpose and I stand by it.

Anyhoo, I'm heading home and should be able to check in again in an hour or so. I plan to enjoy the glow I have left until then.

That's in the FAQ.

And it's pretty fricken hilarious. There was that part about force-feeding a lamp electrons, or setting it on fire.

No -- the electron/fire thing is in the BRQG, but it isn't in the FAQ. It was me and Gudanov having a flame war, if you will, which happened much later than the original "How Many Buffistas" lightbulb thing.

I'm fine with Jon's suggestion, if it'll get us out of this mire. Midnight tonight?

vote(s)@buffistas.org has been pointed to Nilly's profile address, language has been approved. Who will take responsibility for posting the announcement?

This is sounding more and more to me like a new vote, not a poll.

Here's my suggestion for the voting (to avoid both leading language and a potential second vote). Thanks to brenda for the original post:

VOTE 1: How are we defining majority?

A) One option must receive a majority (50% + 1) of votes cast. If no option receives a majority, no action will result.

B) Option receiving the most votes wins, regardless of whether they constitute a majority as defined above (a plurality, in other words).

Note: vote has two options, majority or plurality.

Vote 2: How would we decide on a majority in those cases where more than two options are required? A) If no option receives a majority, a run-off between the top two finishers will occur.

B) Preferential voting should be implemented so that one option receives the required majority. [Link to brief explanation, e.g. John's chart]

Note: vote has two options, run-off or preferential.

If no option receives a majority, a run-off between the top two finishers will occur

I think "two" should be made more general in case there's a tie for second place.

I'm back.

How would we decide on a majority in those cases where more than two options are required?

But some folks have suggested that we do this vote by vote.

This is going round and round. I suggested some wording. It received 4 seconds. Can't we just go with it and get the basic question decided?

Burrell: The problem with yours is that there seems to be an assumption that Option 2 in vote 1 will win. If Option 1 wins, then the point is moot.

I like Jon's Ballot, although, to satisfy those who voted Supermajority, I'd add another question:

Item 2

Would a clearer definition of Simple Majority have affected your vote last week? (Perhaps with a link to the previous question.)
A) Yes
B) No

I don't understand the purpose of asking that question, Gandalfe. What do we do with the answer?

I think the ballot should just be kept simple. Whatever gets the most votes versus 50% + 1. Maybe throw in "regardless of the amount of options". But all this talk of preferential voting and run-offs being included in the actual ballot is just going to cloud the issue. Preferential voting wasn't even mentioned in the last vote, so if this vote is to clarify the first vote, including other stuff is unnecessary.

I also don't think that the vote should necessarily be what the person intended at the time. If they've changed their minds, then so be it. It will still represent the will of the Buffistas now. And isn't that what everybody wants?