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.
Burrell, I'm aware that there are people here who both understand it and don't want it. Agreeing on an explanation in no way forces anyone to vote in a particular direction. The intention is simply to avoid much of the previous unpleasantness, which to me was tied up in
a. the length of time it took to discuss just what it was, and
b. confusion between people saying 'it's too complicated' and 'I don't want it'.
Plus, if it ever comes to a vote, we're going to want to agree wording, right?
For me it's the Bush/Gore/Nader explanation.
I'd suggest right now that we not actually open such a discussion right now, especially since off-topicness is more of an issue in this thread and there's been nothing directly proposed about preferential voting. This is just a suggestion for when it does come up again.
I like Burrell's suggestion a lot. Put up 3, 4, and 6 and let them fight it out.
We all know 6 will win anyway.
Yeah, 6 is the sh*t.
Let's put up 6, 4 and 3, and if in the extremely unlikely event that 6 doesn't get 51% of the vote, then we fight out what to do.
Here's a thought:
Let 6, 4, and 3 duke it out. Include preferences on the ballot, but (for now) count only first choices. If there is no majority, hold an old-fashioned run-off, then compare the result with what preferential tallying on the first ballot would have resulted in.
I'm only half kidding.
Brenda-- I think this might be a good thought-- a test, if you will of peoples willingness to do preferential balloting without actually committing to it. Also, isn't this supposed to go to vote tomorrow?
If so, we need more wording and a form and such.
