Mal ,'Shindig'
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
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.)
This is hard to articulate, but I support the no majority/no confidence thing when we are deciding amoung 2 choices.
Wolfram, I would hope that most of our questions will have just two options, yay or nay. I hope.
Maybe I'm confused. If there's only two choices you can't have less than 50% for both choices. My point is if there's three choices, with two choices being for change and one being for status quo, then the choice for status quo will win each and every time there isn't a majority if we use the no majority/no confidence method. Obviously this isn't may not be the fairest method.
then the choice for status quo will win each and every time there isn't a majority if we use the no majority/no confidence method
Yes, this. That bothers me.
My preference at this point is preferential voting, used as rarely as possible.