'The Message'
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!
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!!!"
I prefer four.
Three. It's so nice and even - we can revisit a decision quarterly.
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.
Go fourth and sin no more.
When you say "fourth" do you mean 4, or 1/4 of a year?
Yeah, clarity lost. Four.
sorry double post.
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.
Sure, the 3 and the 6 people will be happy, but what about the monkey faction? Won't somebody think about the monkey!!!
I do find it somewhat ironic that we are having a consensus about whether to use 3 or 4.
(edit) Er, nothing here that helps, is there? I understand the desire for a nice clean two choice (and abstention) vote; but if we have to vote to decide on what goes on the ballot, isn't it easier to average?