Gar, that post made no sense to me. Seriously. It's late, I'm tired.

Smaller words?

---

OK Gar, it's five-fifteen PM in my brain and even I'm finding that a bit confusing.

Why not put the ability to rank in the ballot and then include in the ballot a series of two, or three or however many yes/no questions it takes to decide how to count. So seconds yes/no.

So you're saying do preferential votes for the number to make MVT, and yes-no for what, exactly?

If no number for a mininum turnout wins a majority - have a run-off or use an average of peoples choices.

Well people wouldn't object to using the average of the prefs-vote if they're not objecting to using the average of numbers they put in by hand -- but I think the old argument of usability will come up and people will say "too fiddly".

I'm really liking "average of numbers entered" at this time.

And, like I said before, I've got some stats on exactly who's in the damn Gang at home which include word counts. No disrespect to DX's stats of course.

---

PMM - I edited the above post.

Our only problem is how to count votes on this one exceptional case.

We have three choices. single-ballot runoff, multi-ballot run-off, averaging.

Why not just add two question?

1)Do we decide the minimum number of voters with some sort of run-off or averaging?

2) If a majority supports some sort of run-off do we use single ballot run-off or multi-ballot run-off?

And then the actual ballot gives the option , but does not force, ranking of choices.

And then we count the ballots the way people vote we should count them.

In other words we count votes as to how to count, before we count. So (ulelss people choose multi-ballot run-off - which they can) we settle everything in one ballot, with all the choices there.

And the choices about how to count are made by yes/no decision - without multiple options.

I'm tired too. So I hope that was clear. Also, you may want to re-read my previous post now that I have edited it.

---

To clarify:

• I think that, as illogical as it might seem to some, yes, people will accept an average-of-everyone's numbers when they wouldn't have accepted prefs-voting before. Snarking about it doesn't help. I'm having to restrain myself too.
• Again, it might appear illogical, but a form which forces people to input a number from their keyboard will seem like less work than one which forces them to choose from a drop-down menu

So as this is feeling like moving forward, I'm going to keep supporting the "think of a number" system. Sorry Gar.

---

John, I proposed an alternative. Let people vote , on the same balot they decide turnout requirements how to count those votes. Averaging would be one choice.

So it is not anti-aveaging. It is let people decide whether they want averageing. It is a way of moving on that is also fair. It is simple also - meet the "good enough" test.

---

I honestly think this a solution.

I think that the number one reason the anti-preferential voting people feel the way they do is that "it's complicated." They are going to think that your multi-question ballot is complicated. They don't seem to think that using an average is complicated. Therefore, I say we should use the average.

My reasons for wanting a preferential ballot is that it would get done quickly (i.e. no second runoff ballot) and that it would be fair. For the questions we need to decide right now, I think the same can be said about using an average. It's "good enough."

---

on the same balot they decide turnout requirements how to count those votes. Averaging would be one choice

OK, I think I see your point now. It's a bit meta -- the vote contains a vote on the vote-counting method? -- but I'm going to abstain from thinking about it now because I'm Going Home To My Wife.

You know, it's still fun saying that.

Back later maybe.

---

Well if you are going to count numbers people just input I'd prefer a binary walk, but I suppose that would be too complicated.

Any way go ahead and do it. But you are not reaching a consenus. You are outvoting me 5 to 1, so fair enough.

---

Christ, I hate to mention it, but we're 900 away from needing a Natter X title.

Suggestions?

(Natter: X Marks the Spot, Natter: X-tra, X-tra, Read All About Us?)

---

X-treme Natter! Don't try this at home!

---