Again, as an alternative to voting on this issue at all, I propose the following:

Any time we have a ballot question that has 3 or more possible answers, we ask (specific to that ballot question only) if people want the votes counted under the preferential method, or if they want them just counted under the most votes wins method. Then you have them rank their choices on the actual issue, in case the preferential method is chosen for that poll. The question of preferential vs. most votes would only ever count on the ballot it's on. It wouldn't be binding on other votes.

Hypothetically, there could be some issues where we don't care enough for preferential, and other issues where we'll really want it. To me, this seems like the most casual way to go. We're never locked into either method, except on a poll by poll basis.

Longer is not better. Seriously.

We're trying to clarify "majority" as it applies to multiple choices.

Would you prefer:

1. No winner is declared unless one faction gets more than 50% of the vote?

Under this plan, 10 A, 5 B, 4 C means that C wins; 9A, 5B, 4C means that nobody wins and we have to either revote or use preference voting.

2. The faction with the largest number of votes always wins. 5A, 4B, 4C means that A wins.

Cindy -- I love the first paragraph because it adds Buffista-esque touch to the proceedings. I still think my clarifications are important though, and for that reason I think we should stick with my wording for the two choices.

Betsy - I don't understand yours at all. Jon, I will go re-read. t /skim confession.

Jon-- can you repost the lastest wording?

Under this plan, 10 A, 5 B, 4 C means that C wins;

Errr...I know I'm bad at math, but how does the lowest vote win? I thought I understood and now I am totally lost again.

Adding in Cindy's first paragraph, it reads as follows:

Simple majority defeated higher majority on our last ballot. The only problem is, the Buffista who wrote up the ballot used an archaic definition of majority. (She also sometime uses shan't and whilst in her posts.) So, now we need to define "majority" in cases where more than two options are available to voters. We are doing this whilst blindfolded, with our hands are tied behind our backs, as we screw in a lightbulb with our teeth.

What do you think a "simple majority" means and how would you like it applied to determine future votes?

Choice 1: An option which receives more than 50% of the vote wins.

Choice 2: Whichever option has the most votes wins.

Choice 1 means that in the rare cases where a ballot question has more than two choices, there will need to be runoff ballots, or you will have to vote preferentially, or we will decide that the vote fails if no choice initially gets 50%. We will decide this either vote by vote, or else there will be another vote where this gets decided for all future ballots.

Choice 2 means that a choice could win even though it received only a small percentage of the total votes cast. For example, if there are five choices that receive 22%, 21%, 20%, 19%, 18%, the choice that received 22% would win with no further balloting.

It's like when NPR runs a story on the Middle East and they get letters from Israeli and Palestinian supporters each claiming the story was baised toward the other side. :)

That doesn't mean there wasn't a bias one way or the other. That's all I'm going to say about this innocuously-meant comment.

Jon - I agree with Connie that the language seems leading. Also, I don't want to see the discussion defined in the ballot. Some wonderchild could come in here tomorrow with a suggestion that will blow our socks off, and I don't think we can put in every suggestion people might have. That's discussion business, not voting business.

I'd like to point out to everyone too, that higher majority wasn't defeated unfairly for most of our purposes. In other words, in a two option question, it was defeated fairly. Now we are refining the process for questions that have 3 or more options.

I agree that choice two seems a little leading. But I want the fuller explanation of the options there, because otherwise we end up right back here. If someone comes up with a wild new way of doing a three-way (not that, you pervs), then we deal with it tomorrow. Or, if option 2 wins, not.