Three.
Very much so.
Wesley: We were fighting on opposite sides, but it was the same war. Fred: but you hated her…didn't you? Wesley: It's not always about holding hands.
'Shells'
Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!
We open it up, we talks the talk, we votes, we shuts it down. This thread is to free up Bureaucracy for daily details as we hammer out the Big Issues towards a vote. Open only when a proposal has been made and seconded according to Buffista policy (Which we voted on!). If this thread is closed, hie thee to Bureaucracy instead!
P.M. Marc - Mar 22, 2003 10:43:15 pm PST #264 of 10289
So come, my friends, be not afraid/We are so lightly here/It is in love that we are made; In love we disappear
amyth - Mar 22, 2003 11:43:05 pm PST #265 of 10289
And none of us deserving the cruelty or the grace -- Leonard Cohen
Just so my earlier three looks like I meant it.
Three. (As opposed to four.)
Which is not in any way related to my earlier six vote, because I never expressed a preference between the two.
Voting complexities make baby Jesus cry.
And make Dawn scream, "GETOUTGETOUTGETOUT!!!"
Susan W. - Mar 23, 2003 12:26:06 am PST #266 of 10289
Good Trouble and Righteous Fights
I prefer four.
brenda m - Mar 23, 2003 12:26:26 am PST #267 of 10289
If you're going through hell/keep on going/don't slow down/keep your fear from showing/you might be gone/'fore the devil even knows you're there
Three. It's so nice and even - we can revisit a decision quarterly.
Noumenon - Mar 23, 2003 12:34:23 am PST #268 of 10289
No other candidate is asking the hard questions, like "Did geophysicists assassinate Jim Henson?" or "Why is there hydrogen in America's water supply?" --defective yeti
Can discussing voting ever be off-topic in a thread called "Voting Discussion"? I think yes.
Actually doing a runoff will take less time than trying to convince everyone to do an instant runoff. We have ample evidence of that.
moonlit - Mar 23, 2003 12:37:25 am PST #269 of 10289
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell
Go fourth and sin no more.
§ ita § - Mar 23, 2003 1:39:04 am PST #270 of 10289
Well not canonically, no, but this is transformative fiction.
When you say "fourth" do you mean 4, or 1/4 of a year?
moonlit - Mar 23, 2003 1:51:11 am PST #271 of 10289
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell
Yeah, clarity lost. Four.
moonlit - Mar 23, 2003 2:00:13 am PST #272 of 10289
"When the world's run by fools it's the duty of intelligence to disobey." Martin Firrell
sorry double post.
Cindy - Mar 23, 2003 4:04:08 am PST #273 of 10289
Nobody
Mathy People - Please Help Me
Question - I understand the need for run-offs and/or preferential voting when we are picking amongst things. In other words, I get why Cambridge does it for candidtates. You can't average people, or combine them in any way. I can understand how if there were several ballot initiative proposes, why we might have it too. In other words, if we'd decided we could only add one thread per quarter and had 5 threads proposed, a run-off or preferential voting would give us the choice acceptable to most people.
But we are talking months here. Numbers. Is preferential voting and/or a run-off going to give us a more acceptable (to more people) number than an average would?
I'm just sayin... Say I want 3 months, Plei wants 3 months, Rebecca wants 4 months, moonlit wants 4 months, ita wants 6 months and Kat wants 6 months.
3
3
4
4
6
6
26
26/6 = 4 and 1/3. 1/3 is rounded down to nothing. We end up with 4. Aren't the 3 people going to be more happy with 4 than with 6? Aren't the 6 people going to be more happy with 4 than with 3?
If we cannot narrow this down to two choices, is there a compelling reason to make the ballot more complicated with first and second choices?
How is this preferable; how would having people give first and second choices among numbers arrive at a more acceptable to all number than determining a reasonable range (3, 4, 5, 6), letting each person choose his first choice?
We're chosing among numbers, not people or other things that can't be averaged.