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.

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.

This choice implies that a new ballot will be necessary every time the 50% mark isn't reached, which implies more voting. This is a bit misleading as preferential voting only votes once. I would rewrite as follows:

Choice 1 means that in the rare cases where a ballot question has more than two choices, the winning choice must get at least 50% of the vote. There are several methods that could be utilized under this Choice, (which have been discussed at length in the Bureaucracy thread) that would not require much, if any, additional voting.

Editing like a madman

Errr...I know I'm bad at math, but how does the lowest vote win?

I.... Have... No... Brain.

A wins.

which have been discussed at length in the Bureaucracy thread

I absolutely do not want to say this. One of the reasons I put my clarifications in there was so that folks who have been scared away from this thread would get the gist of the implications of each choice.

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

I would say "there may need to be" not "there will need to be." We can't assume that there will never ever be a 50%+1 majority with 3+ options.

Also, and I know I keep asking the same question, but it keeps not being answered: Is this a new vote or a poll of our views on the old vote?