Back now.

I feel like I'm mercilessly picking on Hil, but I have one more comment to make on post 7040:

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.

I think if the 3 options are indeed three reasonable changes with a fair amount of support (which they should be to even get on the ballot), you're unlikely to get a majority to vote for one of the three; you'll usually get 25%-40% for each of the three options. You'll only get over 50% when one (or two) of the options are quite significantly unliked.

I'm think this can be though of as similar to the half full / half empty question. If the three options all get close to 33%, you're seeing each glass as two-thirds empty, while I'm seeing each of them as one-third full. You're saying that two-thirds of the people are against each option, so they're all unliked. I'm saying that each option got about the same amount of votes, so they're about equally liked.

---

And beating a dead horse, the way to fairly gauge general dislike of all three options is to put None of the Above on the ballot.

---

t Voting natter

Today is election day for local officials where I live. In my little city we had 3 races. Mayor and 2 city commissioners. The mayor and one of the commissioners were unopposed. That left one seat being decided and it is generally accepted that the incumbent will win that seat with ease.

I voted. The poll workers all but through a party when I walked in. From 7AM to 9:30 only 24 people had voted. Generally first thing in the morning is rush hour at the polls.

The reason for the uncontested seats and the sparse turnout is generally accepted to be satisfaction not apathy. The current elected officials in my city are extremely popular. Great stuff has happened to the city over the past dozen years or so and they routinely get great press. No one bothered to run against the mayor and even the person who ran against the incumbent commissioner says the guy does a great job.

I will vote and participate in any decisions that are made in this community because that is what I do, but I don’t expect to see a huge % of participants. I think this will happen for the same reason only a tiny percentage of people will vote in Delray Beach today. This is a great community and many people are satisfied with the decisions being made by the few.

t /voting natter

So, what exactly are we actually deciding at the moment?

---

Um-- I think we need a white-fonter in COMM stat.

---

bicyclops - I don't disagree with your main point, but I think we're putting the cart before the horse here. Let's get Sophia's round of questions decided and then wait until we actually have something non-meta to vote on. I think that once we get a better feel for the sorts of things we're voting on, it will be more clear what the "no change" rules should be.

---

Typo Boy:

OK - one minor nit Bicyclops - the question of quorum (actually minimum vote) has already been settled in a previous vote. We will have one. Only the number (but above one) remains to be decided.

I understand that we voted for quorum. The point of my example was to show that there could be a person who would interpret None of the Above as a protest against the previous vote by insisting that the quorum be as low as possible. Whereas other people might interpret None of The Above/Status Quo to mean something entirely different.

And to out-nitpick you, the wording on the ballot:

A yes vote on this item signifies the voter wants a minimum* number of community members voting on any item in order for the vote to count.

* for Item 2: Quorum, yes vote: the minimum number will be a number to be determined by the community in a subsequent vote, if item 2 is voted in.

To me, nothing in this wording necessarily implies that the minimum number be greater than 1. Contrary to the spirit of the vote, maybe, but not the wording.

1)If either neccesity or fairness require more than two options on a ballot, and "no change" is a possible decision, and no majority results, should a runoff be required?

A yes vote will require some sort of run-off whether single ballot or multiple ballot. If a prevous vote or some other practical neccesity does not exclude "none of the above" as a choice, then "none of the above" or some appropriate equivalent will be offered as one choice.

A no vote means that no change will take place if no option wins a majority.

A previous vote could conflict with a “no change” outcome. We voted for quorums; if no quorum option gets a majority, then the “no change” conflicts with the earlier vote. Also add: If “no” wins on this question, subsequent ballots should include language that explicitly states what “no change” means for that ballot, so that everyone understands what the outcome of a non-majority vote will be.

A no vote means that if no option wins a majority, a run-off vote will take place between the top two contenders so that some option wins a majority. It is possible in such a run-off that the second choice of a majority will exist, but not be on the run-off ballot.

This is debatable too. If we go for multiple runoffs instead of preferential voting, we’ve got a discussion of runoff procedure in our future. I would maintain that given the results: A) 24% B)23% C)21% D)17% E)15%, you shouldn’t have a runoff between A and B only, since only 47% cumulatively voted for them, while 53% percent cumulatively voted against them. You runoff candidates should cumulatively have a majority, so you would runoff A, B & C (68% cumulatively). That of course could mean a second runoff between the winners of the first runoff. The preferential voting system takes care of all of this in one vote.

---

Let's get Sophia's round of questions decided

But can we vote on quorums and seconds before knowing how multiple-choice votes are counted?

I'm all for the idea of using preferential voting for these, but at least one person objected to it. Can we ignore that objection or do we have to vote on how to vote first?

---

Please please please please can we not use the word "quorum" to mean "minimum voter turnout" or "minimum number of votes".

Quorum really doesn't mean what we're using it for here. Not in a "maybe there's ambiguity" way like with "majority", but unambiguously.

I thought we'd got the Q-word killed off, and now it's coming back, like some horrible ... coming-back ... thing.

t /needs coffee

---

You want to stand over it with a stake. (See Buffy vs. Dracula for details.)

Edit: I really have nothing to say. Sorry.

---

But can we vote on quorums and seconds before knowing how multiple-choice votes are counted?

I'm all for the idea of using preferential voting for these, but at least one person objected to it. Can we ignore that objection or do we have to vote on how to vote first?

We can ignore the objection because that person, IIRC, said we could ignore it. I've seen a consensus that we try a preferential ballot for this next round and see how it goes.

---