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
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.
but if I had been all for the process, I'd be pissed right now.
I hope there is some tolerance for the notion that the process is not yet in place and we're fumbling our way toward it.
I'm ready to go with Jon's ballot as amended by Cindy's intro.
My brain has now reached its saturation point on this subject and is vigorously rejecting any new input on the matter.
We haven't finished the first ballot yet. We finish that, and move on with ramifications of it to new and wondrous votes.
