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.

Deena you do have an interesting way of posing the PV dilemma.

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

Here's the paradox. The people who want to understand how it's counted, don't like the math involved, so they don't want to take the time to understand how it's counted (and give themselves a headache.) And each time the PV term comes up, it's like a little hammer beating away at that sensitive spot right behind your eyebrows. Don't worry about the math. It's fair, and the choice that the actual majority favors will win.

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.

Then don't. Vote 6 and only 6. I don't think PV requires you to vote for a second and third preference, it just gives you that option. And, 6NMoReTurEm4EVAH!!!!

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

Bwah. And see previous response.

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."

Your analogy is only true if your True Number has lost the majority vote. At least now you'll have some say in the final number. Or you can abstain.

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.

If only every consensus was that easy. And FTR, I always thought Mary Anne had some shimmy too.

The way I see it, either we come to a consensus on 3 or 4 months, or we do PV, or we do a runoff. The first option doesn't seem to be happening, the second option is giving people headaches, and the third option makes the process longer and more drawn out. Have I summed it up right?

Your analogy is only true if your True Number has lost the majority vote. At least now you'll have some say in the final number. Or you can abstain.

If you vote for a second choice, you aren't cheating then, but you're Planning to Cheat (which is just as bad), because you don't think your True Number has the staying power required or something. There's that little niggling doubt, anyway. If you abstain, you're letting the matchmaker choose your True Number for you.

ftr, I really do think of numbers this way. I have been the despair of many math teachers.

Don't worry about the math. It's fair, and the choice that the actual majority favors will win.

This sounds like one of my math teachers telling me not to worry about 1's motivation and why it's such a loner. I'm not sure I like this side of you, Wolfie (snerk, wolfie, snerk).

Oh, and I do think you see it pretty well, but I'm not sure we haven't, or won't, come to a consensus. It's a long and talky process.

If I may make a suggestion: if we do open up a preferential voting discussion in the future, how about we start it off, not with discussing the merits thereof, but by trying to hammer out an explanation of how it works that people can agree does so clearly? So, y'know, we have a given passage, and we can discuss the wording thereof, what's too vague or too confusing, that sort of thing. It seems to work pretty well with other issues to get the focus onto exact wording, it might help with this issue too.

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

The reason people can't decide is that there is, in fact, piss little difference between the two (okay, exactly one month difference in fact), and no one wants to admit that. Except the people who plan on voting for 6 months anyway.

At this point, the path of least resistance is to have 3 numbers on the ballot (3, 4, and 6) and have an immediate run-off in case there is no majority. Y'all can keep duking it out, but this seems like the simplest path to me.

If I may make a suggestion: if we do open up a preferential voting discussion in the future, how about we start it off, not with discussing the merits thereof, but by trying to hammer out an explanation of how it works that people can agree does so clearly?

I can only speak for myself, but I am not confused about how it works at this point & do not think a clear explanation is what is needed. I think some people want it and others don't.

This sounds like one of my math teachers telling me not to worry about 1's motivation and why it's such a loner.

If your teachers had to get this meta, I'm way out of my league.

....by trying to hammer out an explanation of how it works that people can agree does so clearly?

For me it's the Bush/Gore/Nader explanation. Hypothetical example:

Republicans - 49% Bush

Democrats - 48% Gore

Greens - 3% Nader

If one party needs over 50%, then nobody's won, and there would need to be a Bush/Gore runoff. A Preferential Vote takes the losing partys' ballots to see who their second choice would be. Then it adds their second choice to the appropriate winning party. Since all the Greens ranked Gore second, Gore gets put over the top with Greens' 3% and wins. (And the world, would be a better place...)

(Obviously we all know that Gore actually won the popular vote, but for hypothetical purposes this example is what does it for me.)