In fairness, though, a lot of the people who said they didn't want preferential said that they didn't want it because it seemed too complicated, or because they didn't get it. Not all though, and I'm sorry if you felt slighted.

The final ballot for the F2F was preferential, though without that name attached, and I thought it gave us a fairly clear and simple result. (FTR, I wrote the ballot on that one, so take that with a grain of salt if you wish. OTOH, the result was not what I voted for, so I can't have been that biased in seeing the results.)

I'm having a little trouble believing that choosing between 3 and 4 as a ballot option has gotten this complicated, though. I'd rather see us campaign a bit between these numbers and see if we can't come to some agreement, as I think we did with (rejecting) 12 and (accepting) 6.

I'm having a little trouble believing that choosing between 3 and 4 as a ballot option has gotten this complicated, though.

I don't think it's that it's complicated, though. I think it's that people just have a gut feeling about one over the other, and there's not so much a way to change that. I mean, I know I'm slightly irrational about it, because really -- three months versus four? So silly. And yet, I can't keep from feeling that three is right and four is CRAZY.

Actually-- the fina;l ballot for the F2F wasn't really preferential. becuase it didn't really add things up correctly. That ballow drove me insane.

The reason I would like us to narrow to 2 choices is because I can't deal with any more preferential voting talk. I understand it, I don't want to talk about it anymore.

I don't think it's that it's complicated, though. I think it's that people just have a gut feeling about one over the other, and there's not so much a way to change that. I mean, I know I'm slightly irrational about it, because really -- three months versus four? So silly. And yet, I can't keep from feeling that three is right and four is CRAZY.

I feel ths way too! I feel so silly about it, but it just seems that no one ever divides the year into thirds!

The only reason I chimed in above is because I wasn't seeing a consensus between 3 and 4.

In fairness, though, a lot of the people who said they didn't want preferential said that they didn't want it because it seemed too complicated, or because they didn't get it. Not all though, and I'm sorry if you felt slighted.

No apologies necessary. I think you're right. But I think the problem was that it wasn't explained well at the start and then some folks tried to explain it but got it wrong which only confused matters further. Some folks understood it when there were three choices but got confused when there were six. Then the conversation got meta where more folks were saying that if people thought it was complicated, we should drop it, even though they themselves understood it. And I was OK with that.

I'm trying to step back, avoid the meta and ask a simple question: Is there anyone who doesn't understand the following or think that it's too complicated?

Three options (3 4 6). Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes.

If there are still people who don't get it, then I'll drop it. But I'd respectfully ask that you don't reply (not yet anyway) unless you are one of those people. Because then Kat's frustration above becomes a self-fulfilling reality and everyone gets frustrated.

I think that talking about preferential voting (PV) is what gives people a headache not the actual voting process itself. I didn't take part in F2F voting and know nothing from experience, but my guess is you set up a preferential style ballot without getting too bogged down in the details, you just ask voters to rank their preferences with a 1, 2 and 3, then let the tallyers worry about the details, most if not all of the Buffista voters will understand what's asked of them and vote the appropriate way. Just because most of us are Americans (I think) doesn't mean non-preferential balloting is the only type, and I honestly don't see why we can't just agree to give it a try with a simple 3, 4 or 6 month vote on the moratorium. From the discussion over the last few days it seems like there's a lot of backing for both 3 and 4 months, not like the 12 month option which very few people really favored. My opinion, let's give PV a chance.

One problem I saw noted before, however, is that some people really want to know the ins and outs of it so they can follow the count. They like being in on the details. It's not that choosing 1, 2, 3, 4 is hard -- we do it on every silly Internet quiz we take. Or, that's one problem.

I, personally, see two problems (using we in the following because I hate being singled out as the OTP*.

1) We want to know exactly how it's counted because we don't like math and therefore don't trust the process.

2) We believe there's only OTP**, (moratorium/6 months for example) and don't want to support some other pair until we're forced to do so.

A) Completing a preferential ballot is like planning to cheat on our favorite number.

B) Doing a runoff is, instead, like settling for an acceptable companion because the True Number has decamped with a totally unsuitable number and may, someday, we hope, come back on its little numerical knees to beg our forgiveness so we can say, "Hah! I'm happy with my New Number, thank you! I don't need you anymore."

C) Coming to consensus is rather like all of us deciding on Ginger vs. Mary Anne. We can generally agree that, though Ginger has the shimmy, Mary Anne has the smarts and the buffista heart.

• OTP = One True Problem
• * OTP = One True Pairing

Three options (3 4 6). Ask people to vote for their runoff choice in advance, should their first choice get the least number of votes.

If there are still people who don't get it, then I'll drop it. But I'd respectfully ask that you don't reply (not yet anyway) unless you are one of those people. Because then Kat's frustration above becomes a self-fulfilling reality and everyone gets frustrated.

Whose second choice counts? Is it all second choices? Is it only the second choice of those who didn't get their first choice?

I was one of the 4 people, but really ... I don't care that much. I mean, to me 3 seems really short, and 6 seems really long, but it's not like something I'll go to my grave over.

This is something whewre I would not mind preferential voting, actually, except it seems to give people huge headaches to discussit so let's not do it.

Whose second choice counts? Is it all second choices? Is it only the second choice of those who didn't get their first choice?

Only the people who didn't get their first choice. The assumption is that if your first choice is 6, and 3 gets the least number of votes, then in the runoff between 6 and 4 you're still going to vote for 6.