If you want a consensus on two choices, then the people who favor choice A) shoulld not be part of the decision on what choice B) is unless they are willing to have a choice (C.

Huh. Interesting.

So since I have embraced 6 as the one true choice, I'm not allowed to have an opinion on what else I prefer should 6 not win?

Uh, Typo, I think you have a bee in your bonnet. You clearly want 4 months, but I don't think it follows that all the people who are claiming they prefer 3 are actually planning on voting for 6.

I honestly don't think people who favor six months should be pushing for three months as the alternative if six months does not pass.

I think anyone who cares about it should get to have a say, even if they plan on voting for the other option. What if someone wants *either* 6 or 3? He/she should get a legitimate airing.

There are, admittedly, a few folks like me who see piss little difference between 3 & 4 and who therefore are keeping out of the debate regarding the second number. But I don't think that someone else has the right to dictate that I--or anyone who cares more--CANNOT have a say.

If you absolutely think that you like six months better than any other alternative, but also strongly feel that three months should be the alternative if six months doesn't pass (rather than four) then you are really saying that you are not happy with two alternatives and want three.

Huh?

I think we need to have 3 or 4 alternatives. It's becoming clear. Which leads into the whole preferential voting/runoff thing. What joy.

If you absolutely think that you like six months better than any other alternative, but also strongly feel that three months should be the alternative if six months doesn't pass (rather than four) then you are really saying that you are not happy with two alternatives and want three.

Color me baffled. This makes no sense at all.

You're saying that people with a clear first choice should not be allowed to have a second choice unless they also have a third choice?

Why?

No, no.

We have 6 definitely. We have 3 and 4 as maybes, and we have the option of writing in a number between 1 and 12 and averaging to the nearest whole number. We just need people who care about 3, 4 or write in to chime in for a consensus.

But I think that, if someone cares about 3 vs 4, regardless of how he plans to actually vote, he should have a say.

I'd suggest having 3, 4, 6 as the options. If we have to have a runoff, okay. No big. But there's a groundswell in my head for 6 (and I see lots of enthusiastic 6-pushers here) so maybe we would get majority + 1 the first time around even with three options.

Why not try it and see?

If we can't come to a consensus for 3 vs 4, I'd rather have a ballot with "Put a number between 2 and 8* in this box" (average the results, round to the nearest integer) than three choices, just to get to the final answer quicker.

(*2 and 8 months seeming like the absolute lowest and highest reasonable time limits to me, but obviously that's up for debate.)

But there's a groundswell in my head for 6.

I hope it's not giving you a headache. (Sorry, I couldn't resist.)

If we can't come to a consensus for 3 vs 4, I'd rather have a ballot with "Put a number between 2 and 8* in this box" (average the results, round to the nearest integer) than three choices, just to get to the final answer quicker.

(*2 and 8 months seeming like the absolute lowest and highest reasonable time limits to me, but obviously that's up for debate.)

I think this too. It's how we got to perfect number 42 on the minimum vote total. Average it. Then we can stop having the 3 or 4 discussion.