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?

I do find it somewhat ironic that we are having a consensus about whether to use 3 or 4.

Hee. I found it ironic on Friday. Yesterday I thunked all the irony out of my head. The monkeys are always with us Elena, always.

three

Three and

Since the last vote, I've decided that somehow the average is unfair to the numbers on either end-- namely three and six.

Which are the only 2 nubers that make any sense to me.

See, I was going to compose a post like Gar's #245, but I was going to make it funny. Damn.

I'm not going to be a pusher for Prffmmmg again. I'm not. But could someone explain to me why a runoff would be better than doing it in one swoop? I really want to know! And don't just say "It's complicated." Three options. Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes. I do not accept that that is complicated.

t edited to add I understood the objections when there were 6 choices (like with the secondses question). I didn't agree, but I understood. Three choices? NSM.

I do not accept that that is complicated.

Jon, it's not complicated for you. But it might be complicated for me or for anyone else who has proposed a runoff. In general, I proposed just voting and having a runoff if necessary because it seems to bother fewere people.

Real life Buffista example of when we have used preferential voting: Choosing a F2F site. We had poll after poll and it was "All Rank Your Choice" which ended up being not as clear as we would have liked.

THAT is why it is complicated in my head. It didn't work cleanly then. Prior experience.

I do not accept that that is complicated.

I don't think you get a choice. Really. Because it's subjective, and it's about the amount of energy & effort that folk have to invest in both understanding and explaining it.

What seems to be clear is that it has taken a lot of explanation. Which implies it will keep taking a lot of explanation, with new voters, and the like.

From that you have to accept something, don't you?