Oh thank god. Sophia said just exactly what I was going to try to figure out how to say.

If the form cannot allow you to skip a question THEN we need something for someone to check that they are skipping

I can set up the form however we like. I just thought that to prevent virtual chads (I love saying that) we should force folks to check off something on every question.

If we're not going to count MVT for this ballot (since we won't have quantified it until we count the ballots) then I'll just put in three choices like I've been doing.

The other option is to calculate the MVT number from the ballots first, and then use that number to validate each question, but that's way too meta for me.

I agree that we don't need minimum voter turnout counted on this vote. Once we've established the number, we can begin counting it for future votes.

Should we make the options for each something like

1) yes

2) no

3) No preference - (count me towards your freaking minimum vote total)

4) I'm blinvisible (don't count me towards the minimum vote total)

Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT. This seems to go way beyond simple to me, if simple is our goal. I was unsure which way to vote on counting abstentions, now the choice seems clear to me. If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count.

Kat, all I can say is, you're the one taking things personally, not me.

I was never "offended" by the use of the phrase "bullshit consensus," which is why I never said that I was, either now or then. Obviously "singled out" was a poor choice of words -- perhaps I should have said "included in."

The only issue that I was bothered by was the hypocrisy I was observing a few days ago, and I brought it up as soon as it arose. Since you never personally offended me, my posts on the subject were never directed specifically at you, or meant to imply anything at all specifically about you, ever. I used the generic "people" not to avoid personal confrontation, but because I was addressing a general tone in the thread. That was all.

Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT.

Coming around to this perspective. Right now, I vote for abstentions only on multiple-item ballots, and leave 'em out of the totals.

One of the things I think is getting lost in the discussion here is that the current ballots, setting up our procedures, are way more complicted than anything we're likely to see come up for vote in the future. I have to keep reminding myself of this when I'm tempted to go for some of the more complicated, address-every-eventuality ideas that have come up.

Wow. I can't think of a better reason to NOT count abstentions as part of the MVT. This seems to go way beyond simple to me, if simple is our goal. I was unsure which way to vote on counting abstentions, now the choice seems clear to me. If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count.

Ummm... Except it looks like we won't do it that way. It will be simple.

Future votes will have only one question. If you think it's an important issue that should be decided, but you can't make up your mind which way to vote, then you vote "no preference". Your vote counts towards the MVT, but not for the actual decision. Why is that not simple?

Your vote counts towards the MVT, but not for the actual decision. Why is that not simple?

Because I guess I'm still going with the much simpler logic of "If you don't vote, your lack of vote doesn't count." Unless someone can convince me that there is a meaningful, logical reason to count a failure to vote as a vote.

Actually, it's kind of hard to decide this without knowing what the MVT will turn out to be. If it's high, I can see wanting to be able to add to the vote without expressing a preference. But if the MVT is below, say, thirty, then I don't see the need.

I'm with Brenda. I cop to right now still not getting the point of the MVT, and therefore would like to be able to "present" to make sure the MVT is met so that the people that have an opinion one way or another can have an effect.