I don't like averaging either. I vote for 6 (or 3 or 4) because that's what I want it to be. Not 5.7. Or 5.

If we can't pick between 3 and 4, make a three choice ballot.

We voted for the right thing on majority/plurality. Having both 3 and 4 months on the ballot won't split the 3-month vote, because we'll probably have a runoff.

Maybe I'm just in a great mood, or something. I've been reading through a threadsuck of this and laughing like a loon. It is like a really tounge-in-cheek mathematical "Waiting for Godot."

ESTRAGON:
You gave me a fright.
VLADIMIR:
I thought it was three.
ESTRAGON:
Four?
VLADIMIR:
Godot. No. Monkey.
ESTRAGON:
Pah! The wind in the reeds. 'Twas six.
VLADIMIR:
I could have sworn I heard shouts.
ESTRAGON:
And why would three shout?
VLADIMIR:
At his horse.
Silence.
ESTRAGON:
(violently). I'm hungry!

I am (obviously) torn between 3 and 6.

4 can talk to the hand. It gives me no love.

I don't like the idea of averaging. I want to vote either between 6 & 3 or 6 & 4. It's cleaner. Plus, I feel like it's silly of us not to be able to come to some agreement on 3 versus 4. Egad!

I didn't like it yesterday. But we came over here, proposed it as certain numbers came up with 3 and 6 and then people wanted 4. It's making me tired.

4 can talk to the hand. It gives me no love.

My sistah.

Look I think people who support six months should be allowed to have an opininion about second choice. But the people who favor six choosing three as the only alternative is like someone running for office choosing their opponent. And I know it is not intended that way - but it is the result.

I mean we are voting on stuff, except a consenus is declared to exlude four as a choice to vote on?

I think three choices is not unreasonable.

I didn't like it yesterday. But we came over here, proposed it as certain numbers came up with 3 and 6 and then people wanted 4. It's making me tired.

I'm sorry this makes you tired Cindy. I thought the point of having a discussion periods is so that what we are voting on is not is not set in stone on the first day of discussion. I honestly don't think someone is being unbearably tedious by coming in late in the discussion, and saying - no I want a choice besides those two. And I'm pretty sure four was brought up early in the discussion. I mean I'm not the only one who likes four; but it is not the number than primarily concerns me.I don't want a new precedent where alternatives are excluded from the vote because they are not brought up the first day of discussion, and then of course discssion is closed for _ months.

If you are going to have a vote and then close discussion for a certain number of months I think you should do one of two things;

1) get at least an old buffista style consensus on alternatives where there are no strong minority objections

2) put all alternatives with strong support on the ballot. Remember a minority of the discussio may win a majority of the vote.

I like 3 for 3's sake, I don't like 6 - so my fatigue is selfish, Gar.

Can I just say that my wife and I did some preferential voting yesterday (NSW state election?) AIFG? Or AIWFG, past tense?

Preferential voting in this case meant a ballot about A5 size, with six candidates on it, which you number from one to six or just vote 1 for your favourite candidate.

But there was another senate ballot, about the size of a hand-towel, with about a hundred weird little parties on it.

What we did is just get the literature from the party we like and do what it told us to do -- essentially copy their recommended voting strategy onto the ballot. We were in and out in thirty seconds, despite the hand-towel.

I'm sorry, John -- I can't tell from your post -- are you pro 3 or 4 as the other option?

gd ... r