I sincerely didn't mean to imply that the status quo is a bad thing. I'm also sorry the rant reignited a debate that escalated into unpleasantness.

But now it's descalated (I think I'm making that word up), so it's all good.

I hate to say this, but I am disillusioned enought to think that this lovely consensus will break down at some point, too.

And I think the seconds thing should be a separate vote

I think we can do it on the same ballot, as I suggested above.

I think we can do it on the same ballot, as I suggested above.

With 0 as one option? That won't work if we are doing the "submit a number between 0 and 20" plan. It needs to be two votes. One to determine if there will be seconds, and another to determine how many seconds are needed.

Sorry,

I meant one proposal, 2 votes.

4a. Do you want seconds?

4b if seconds win, how many do you want?

OK doing the dance of Actually Formulating A Proposal:

Proposal: that we allow free-text entry of numbers into the vote for Seconds and for Minimum Voter Turnout.

Seconds: we ask for a number between 1 and 20 and ignore numbers that don't fit.

MVT: we ask for a number between 10 and 100 and ignore numbers that don't fit.

Rounding: we round to the nearest five.

Oops I feel like I stepped on Sophia's toes now.

And rounding to the nearest five only applies to MVT.

I meant one proposal, 2 votes.

4a. Do you want seconds?

4b if seconds win, how many do you want?

Maybe re-word 4b to "if you want seconds, or have an opinion on how many, even though you are against seconds, how many do you feel should be required?" ? or something?

No, that is OK. We just haven't decided on whether or not we need seconds yet. The MVT was on the previous ballot.

OK slightly amended MVT Number Proposal:

PROPOSAL: that we allow Buffistas to just tell us the number they think is right for Minimum Voter Turnout.

Details: we ask for a number between 10 and 100 and reject other numbers. We round to the nearest five.

Wow! So statistical analysis is cool, but a preferential ballot is too complicated? t eyeroll

bitterchick - All that's ever been proposed with respect to preferential balloting is that we use it to determine the secondses and the MVT. That's all.

The issue that was raised with using a mean, mode, median, whatever, is that no one ends up happy. With a preferential ballot, most people get their first or second choice. With a mean, etc., you could end up in a middle that no one wants.

That said, I'm not opposed to using a mean if it means (heh!) that we'll have this fucking vote already.

Pardon my French.