Tracy ,'The Message'
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
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.
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.
I think that's kind of the point. Keeping the status quo is preferable to instituting a change that's not supported by the majority of voters.
I think for something like MVT, we are going to have to employ a run-off or something because it will probably have more than 3 options.
I think that's kind of the point. Keeping the status quo is preferable to instituting a change that's not supported by the majority of voters.
But let's say we have three choices where the vote splits as follows - Change1 28%, Change2 32%, and NoChange 40%. Now let's say everyone who voted for Change1 would prefer Change2 over NoChange, and everyone who voted for Change2 would prefer Change1 over NoChange. What we have is a clear majority of folks who want change but aren't getting it. Is that fair?
I'm not saying that preferential balloting (which I think would be more fair in my example) is always the answer, but clearly it makes sense at least some of the time. I'm with those who say we need to choose our method depending on the specific question being voted on.