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.

I'm with those who say we need to choose our method depending on the specific question being voted on.

I am, too.

eta - the choice can be a choice on the ballot each time we have a ballot with multiples choices. So question one would be on the issue itself. Question 2 would ask if people wanted to

a) ignore and let the issue die if there's not a 50%+1 majority
b) count as preferential ballots (we'd have people rank their choices up front, in case this was chosen)
c) run-off
d) whatever the other options are

So question one would be on the issue itself. Question 2 would ask if people wanted to

a) ignore and let the issue die if there's not a 50%+1 majority

b) count as preferential ballots (we'd have people rank their choices up front, in case this was chosen)

c) run-off

d) whatever the other options are

So three plus choices as to type of choice? There is a paradox here - what if none of the three took a majority? Here is my thought between preferential voting (that is one-ballot runoff) and multi-ballot run-off. I think a consensu will gradually develop. So why not not give people just two choices -whatever type of run-off a consensus develops around (one ballot or multiple ballot) is one choice. "If absolute majority fails than the status quo wins" is the other choice. That way at least the way to vote can be decided by a simple majority. As to whether people prefer single ballot run-off or multiple ballot run-off in cases where there is to be a run-off - well let's decide that in the future. We seem to be leaning towards single ballot run-off for this one time - just to avoid having to take a lot of votes.

At some point in the future we may take a two option vote on whether one-ballot or multi-ballot runoffs are prefereable where run-offs occur. Or we may not.

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 could see an occasional problem with this, where we may have voted to institute a change and then need to vote on how to implement that change. (like now, for instance.) In such a situation there is no status quo to be kept.

This probably supports the suggestion that we choose the method each time we vote. I'm against that, however, as I think it adds to the confusion. (Especially since we have multiple possible ways of voting, and this suggestion would seem to preclude a prescribed way of counting the votes on voting. Will that be preferential, or run-off, or...?)

I think it will be better to establish a standard practice for votes with multiple options. Then we can put that method in the FAQ or some such and it'll have the chance to become more familiar through usage. And, of course, each time we vote we only have to vote on the issue, we don't need to go meta each time. (Perhaps we can leave a loophole that if the question up for voting just isn't compatible with the chosen Buffista voting method, we can change it in individual cases. Though how that would get decided I don't know.)

Inicdentally, the issue that Jon mentioned, that there may be a clear preference for change but the status quo is still kept, is more or less what happened to the Australian Republican referendum. One poll I saw at the time listed support for keeping the monarchy at only 10% of the population; but dispute over the form a republic should take prevented the referendum getting up. A large section of the population voted, not against a republic, but the particular form of the republic that was put up.

Here's a stab at a more complex example of preferential voting:

[link]

Going to bed now, so I won't be able to answer any questions or fix anything until tomorrow.

I think it will be better to establish a standard practice for votes with multiple options. Then we can put that method in the FAQ or some such and it'll have the chance to become more familiar through usage. And, of course, each time we vote we only have to vote on the issue, we don't need to go meta each time.

I agree with this. I don't want to get meta every time. And I think it will become more clear with usage. That noted, I'm willing to do a little trial and error during this period and see how things work on the practical level as we sort out what works best for us. Let's try the preferential ballot to figure out quorum and what happens in votes without a majority. We'll take that information (and how the voting process itself goes. And the tallying.) and go from there.

I'm a big believer now in taking this one step at a time and balancing theory against results at each step.