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.

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

Jon, this is a nice piece of work. Two possible suggestions:

1. Maybe there should be a short summary of preferential voting at the top.

2. Though voting on a quorum is the example being bandied about right now for multiple-option voting, maybe your example would benefit from replacing the numbers with A, B, C, D and E. I was momentarily confused as to whether the numbers stood for the numbers of votes cast for particular options.

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?

Which is why

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

I barely have to type at all.

OK-- I was on crack last night.

So, is there anyone here against trying preferential voting this one time?

Also (and I really don't want to stir up a can of worms), have we consensed on having voting on something mean that the subject is not to be voted on for 6 months after? Because people are talking like it is a done dea, which is fine with me, but it hasn't actually come up for vote.

1. Maybe there should be a short summary of preferential voting at the top.

Agreed. I want to write a summary at the end too, comparing to a separate runoff election.

maybe your example would benefit from replacing the numbers with A, B, C, D and E

I did that because I wanted to show that there would be times when it would be almost mindless to rank your choices. i.e., if your first choice is the highest one (50), then clearly your second choice would be the second highest (40). I tried using 100 through 500 as choices but the tables looked too cluttered.

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

Not even sure which post I copied the above from, but I would like to say that even though I agree with it, and would vote for it, the trouble with opening up this voting procedure, I think, is that none of us has the authority to decide what does or doesn't need to be voted upon on our own. I don't think thread naming needs to be put to a vote, and, in fact, I think it would be a giant pain in the ass if each thread needed to be voted upon before it could be opened.

But now that we are voting, don't we need to have a vote to see if the will of the board is for or against voting on thread names? Or do a handful here have the power to decide whether or not an issue even gets to a vote?

Also, am I wrong or are the two major options for getting a 50% majority on issues with multiple choices either preferential voting or runoffs? If there are only two choices, why not just put them up for a vote before we get into another of those endless circular discussions?

Oh, and I can't believe I'm actually doing this all again. Now I must go pray my head does not explode.

Anathema, I think that it was already decided that we would do the thread naming the same way as always before we voted to vote. I think that was inherant in the 'voting on big decisions' thing.

Also, am I wrong or are the two major options for getting a 50% majority on issues with multiple choices either preferential voting or runoffs? If there are only two choices, why not just put them up for a vote before we get into another of those endless circular discussions?

No, there are three choices. There's preferential voting, runoffs (which are really just two different ways of doing the same thing), or saying that if no choice gets 50%, there's no change made.

But now that we are voting, don't we need to have a vote to see if the will of the board is for or against voting on thread names?

One of the premises of the initial vote was that this procedure would not be used for thread names. If someone wanted to change that, we could discuss it at some point, but it's not something we have to decide now.

I think thread naming was specifically excluded from things to vote on through the original ballot.