I just get head explody when we get into trying to anticipate every possible what-if that might occur in the future.

Concur. I'm amenable to trying a preferential ballot on the quorum question. Again, that's just my opinion, but that's how I'm leaning.

I don't intend to rush anything, if people prefer to wait, but just in order to keep things in order, the last former proposal for a ballot was in Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 3, 2003 2:25:48 pm EST (there were some corrections made after this post, but they were part of what created the second ballot, so we'll probably need to correct over them anyway).

Thank you Nilly!

I knew that existed somewhere. Yay Nilly once again!

Nilly - the problem is two of the questions in Sophias proposal require decision between multiple options:

number or percent of minimum turnout required

and number of seconds (One choice being zero because we have not decided on seconds.)

So if we can't reach on consensus on how to handle that (at least this one time) then we have to vote on that before we can vote on Sophias propolsal.

If we really can informally agree to use preferential voting, just this one time, without prejudice to the future, then a nice possiblity arises. As long as the ballot will include multiple questions anyway, are there any other questions that need to be decided we can add? Because maybe we can we make this the last vote on process by including all other process questions that need to be decided?(iI can't remember any offhand.)

Because if we can then this becomes the last voting on voting ballot, the last discussing about discussing discussion for a while, hopefully for a long while.

I like the way Typo Boy thinks.

My problem with not acting if a vote doesn't provide a 50%+ winner is it really limits the utility of voting at all. Assuming most voters agree that some action is better than no action, the most likely outcome is discussing the issue until there seems to be a consensus winner that people will vote for as a compromise, which doesn't really strike me as an improvement.

Assumign most voters agree that some action is better than no action, the most likely outcome is discussing the issue until there seems to be a consensus winner that people will vote for as a compromise, which doesn't really strike me as an improvement.

I don't think you can make that assumption in all cases. My preference would be for the type of multiple-choice counting used to be determined on a case-by-case basis, with preferential used only at times when it's really necessary. (My reasoning for this is that, to begin with, I think it would be a pain to have to rank more than about three choices, and secondly, it would be a pain to have to explain preferencial voting whenever there's a new Buffista who doesn't understand it.)

I'll reattribute your random generator quotes to you when I get home tonight.

Oh, shrift, you update the Buff Dive when people change their names? That is so cool of you.

How about something like this. For each issue that goes up to vote with more than two options, why can't a second question be asked as well? Something along the lines of "If none of these options receives 50% of the vote or more, would you a.)like to see the issue tabled for x amount of time, or b.) like to have a run-off between the two most popular options. Seems something like that could work.

I'll also again mention the option that with no majority, the vote could be considered to be a Vote of No Confidence for making any change at all. I'm not wed to that notion, but I do think No Majority could be considered an instrument of closing discussion on issues and putting them aside for six months/year.

Can I say that I really really like this? A lot.

And that's all I'll say because I fear I'm one of thos oft-posters here and I don't really want to be.

Thank you Nilly!

I'll tally next time if there is a need.