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.

---

Do we need a re-proposal of what I posted of what Jesse posted, or are we going to wait awhile before voting again?

---

I think previous discussions have gone much better, despite the extra screen space taken up, when we keep re-posting a proposal, with changes or footnotes.

As has been much-discussed here, one major problem with discussions online is that the issues keep being lost or over-written by new arrivals joining the discussion and previous people leaving.

I think the situation where we keep saying

so here's the proposal:

• Blah
• Blah
• Blah

despite the repetition, is good for keeping things at the forefront.

---

What John just said.

---