Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method. But I don't agree with the "if people don't like the way it is, then some change is better than no change" argument. If there's something that people don't like, and three options for change, and none of them get a majority vote, then I'd think that sometimes that's something where we should look at it some more and see if we can come up with some other option that would get the majority vote (maybe combine two of them somehow, or something), rather than going with something that the majority initially voted against. Not for every vote, of course, but as an option to be used when appropriate.

But I don't agree with the "if people don't like the way it is, then some change is better than no change" argument.

But that's not my argument. I say put "Don't Change Anything" as another option on the ballot. If a majority of people agree, then nothing changes.

I feel mischaracterized. I'm a monkey pants lover, not a lover of the monkey himself.

Just kidding. I think you raise some excellent points. I'd already thought of the 'the more options, the less chance of majority' thing. It's a valid issue.

My support of the no majority/no change option was to avoid the opposite slant. That it would be ridiculously easy for changes to be made to the boards. If we could have one second and five voters turned out, then a majority of three people could effect a change, and how is this different from consensus gained by a small number of people? I realize, yes, this is theoretical, and we've had no shortage of voter turnout so far. So if we oppose a change, we can vote against it, yes. But I would rather have it deliberately difficult to move things, so that we get substantial, meaningful change.

I don't think anyone would suggest putting status quo on the ballot as well as having failure to gain majority result in status quo. If we opt against no majority/no change, then we must put status quo on the ballot where it applies. Otherwise, there would never be a case where status quo would remain, if everything is decided by runoff or preferential voting.

Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method.

Sure it can. Do a runoff. We already voted that 50% is required for every vote. That to me means runoff.

But that's not my argument. I say put "Don't Change Anything" as another option on the ballot. If a majority of people agree, then nothing changes.

But my argument is that, in some cases, if we can't agree on how to change, then it's better to stick with what we've got until we can find a change that more people can agree on.

Well, things like minimum quorum size, where some decision has to be made, obviously can't use the "have to get 50%" method.

Sure it can. Do a runoff. We already voted that 50% is required for every vote. That to me means runoff.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I was using "have to get 50%" to mean "have to get 50% on first vote," to differentiate it from the various runoff methods.

But my argument is that, in some cases, if we can't agree on how to change, then it's better to stick with what we've got until we can find a change that more people can agree on.

Exactly.

The whole reason we're implementing the voting system is that some people felt that community decisions were being bulldozed through by a relatively small group of people. Therefore, we have to design a system that allows a vote for no change.

If there's something that people don't like, and three options for change, and none of them get a majority vote, then I'd think that sometimes that's something where we should look at it some more and see if we can come up with some other option that would get the majority vote (maybe combine two of them somehow, or something), rather than going with something that the majority initially voted against. Not for every vote, of course, but as an option to be used when appropriate.

In this case, we could add
D) None of the above. A change may be needed but I don't like A, B, or C. Let's discuss it some more and see if we can come up with better options.
E) Status Quo. Don't change it. I like it the way it is.

If D & E together got more votes than A & B & C on the initial vote/1st preference, then the change wouldn't be made, whatever the runoff decided. The majority wins.

Except, D would, presumably, then override the "no more discussion for 6 months" rule.

The whole reason we're implementing the voting system is that some people felt that community decisions were being bulldozed through by a relatively small group of people. Therefore, we have to design a system that allows a vote for no change.

I absolutely agree. IJS put No Change on the ballot.

Gotta go for now.