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?

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 wasn't exactly preferential voting. We had stats as to how many people prefered each city as a first choice, and how many prefered each as a second choice, but no way of seeing how individual people voted. It wasn't the same type of data.

No, Hil, you're right. It wasn't exactly the same kind of data. Though I would think, if we did preferential voting at the end of the day, in aggregate, the data would be remarkably similar.

But it was still a ranking system that people used to make their preferences known. And it was painful at the time.

I don't think you get a choice. Really. Because it's subjective

I get that. Really. But:

Three options. Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes.

Is it possible for someone to explain to me why they think that's complicated? Again, 6 choices? I understand. This is different.

it seems to bother fewer people.

Does it bother you? Or does it just bother you that it bothers other people? I'd like to hear from someone who doesn't like it for itself. Not for meta-reasons.

which ended up being not as clear as we would have liked.

I would argue that it wasn't clear because we had no defined system to interpret the results, and there were more than three choices.