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.

So. There we have it.

I agree with David & Kat, and support the No Majority/No Confidence option.

The visible problem is what to do when we must come to a result. Either the item is necessary (making a change or not is not under question) like thread titles, or the change has already been voted in and we're just setting up the details like voter turnout numbers.

This is hard to articulate, but I support the no majority/no confidence thing when we are deciding amoung 2 choices.

When it becomes more than that, it becomes ,pre difficult. If there are 5 choices, it is very hard to obtain a true majority.

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.

The problem with this approach is in cases where one of the choices is against the proposal, that choice wins in each instance when it loses.

This is crossing (and maybe burning) bridges before we get to them, but I think for multiple choices we'd have to have a run-off/preferential voting. It's unlikely to get a clear majority in those, hopefully rare, situations.

We weren't planning to make thread-naming a voting issue, were we?

Wolfram, I would hope that most of our questions will have just two options, yay or nay. I hope.

Thread-naming does not need the Big Buffista Decision Procedure.

I'm with those who are with trying out the preferential voting for now, for deciding the Minimum Voter Turnout number, and the number of seconds needed, if any.

I agree with Jesse.

This is crossing (and maybe burning) bridges before we get to them, but I think for multiple choices we'd have to have a run-off/preferential voting. It's unlikely to get a clear majority in those, hopefully rare, situations.

I'd still think that those should be decided case-by-case. I like the idea of having that as an additional question on the ballot, whether it should be majority of one vote or runoffs. There are some cases where I'd think that a change shouldn't be made unless there's a clear majority for it. (Of course, I can't think of any of those right now, but I had one I thought of a little while ago and forgot. Which is utterly useless now.)