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
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?
Burrell:
I thought it was going to be a poll. but ir looks like a re-vote.
I would call it a new vote, since I think we can't force people to think of it only as a poll of our previous view.
Okay so it's a vote.
So this does officially mean that we have dumped our 4th measure down the toilet already. Not that I mind all that much, seeing as I voted against it, but if I had been all for the process, I'd be pissed right now.
So this does officially mean that we have dumped our 4th measure down the toilet already. Not that I mind all that much, seeing as I voted against it, but if I had been all for the process, I'd be pissed right now.
Well, I think we can sort of get around that. We're not really voting on a new issue. We're re-voting because we're unclear as to what the answer really was in the first vote.
