depending upon whether or not we say there has to be a true majority one of the 3 numbers.

But we've already said there needs to be a true majority and that we'd decide this one question (<edit>well, two actually t /edit ) via a preferential ballot.

Think about it - If a majority want no secondses, then "0" will win with a majority right away. If a majority do want secondses, then they will vote for one of the other choices and "0" will be eliminated in one of the rounds of preferential balloting. It does the same thing.

Correct me if I am wrong-- if we weren't going with preferential balloting, if we were going with "If there is no true majority, then we will table the issue" it would matter?

So anyway, yes, I see that with the preferential. I just didn't know that everyone agreed to try this time when I posted the change.

Can I ask the board if anybody is against trying out preferential voting for any reason other than "in principle." I think all the previous posts have been either:

1) try out preferential voting or 2) no, it's not fair in principle to try out something that needs to be voted on first.

Personally, I find the debating to be engaging as an exercise, but as a practical matter, it's extremely tiring and annoying. For weeks this thread has been dancing around how to vote, how to count votes, who needs to vote, my vote's for monkey etc. and I know big picture everybody thinks we'll have some Great System in place after this is done, but we're losing the forest for the trees. One of the Davids said Keep it Simple and we've gone way past that.

So let's try out the preferential voting which, if I understand it correctly, works the same as an initial vote and a runoff without the necessity of voting twice.

if we weren't going with preferential balloting, if we were going with "If there is no true majority, then we will table the issue" it would matter?

Yes, you are correct. Sorry for the confusion.

I just didn't know that everyone agreed to try this time when I posted the change.

I'm not trying to foist anything on anyone. Really. But I thought we had consensus.

t edit and what Wolfram said.

What's the big deal with no clear 50%+1 = tabling? I don't see it as a rebuking of any change. I don't see this as a never talk about it again. It's just don't talk about it for a while. How is this such A Big Thing?

I'm not trying to foist anything on anyone. Really. But I thought we had consensus.

I didn't see a consensus for it. I saw the usual gang of fourteen.

I did too, but sometimes it is hard to tell. It seems like the people who think "What is wrong with the status quo/" also think that we sholdn't have preferential voting, but I can't tell anymore. My comprhension was low today.

OK-- so if we change the wording to make it 2 votes, it seems like we avoid the problem...

(well except for the problem that if we vote yes, and then don't get a clear majority, we're just stuck in limbo)

It seems like the people who think "What is wrong with the status quo/" also think that we sholdn't have preferential voting, but I can't tell anymore.

This is not me. I think that we shouldn't rule out "no straight majority means the issue gets tabled for now" for all issues. Preferential vs. runoffs is a separate issue, and while I'm more in favor of runoffs, I'm fine with preferential if it'll work. (I guess my view right now, on most of these issues, is, "Let's try it and see what happens, then decide what works.")

I didn't see a consensus for it. I saw the usual gang of fourteen.

If the "gang of fourteen" are the only ones giving an opinion, then how else do you propose we reach consensus.

Let me ask this differently - How do you propose we vote on questions 3 & 4 (min turnout and secondses) if we don't use a preferential ballot?