bwaaa!, Brenda.

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.

25 or 6 to 4.

In the year 2929...

I'm one of those non math savvy people, I try very hard not to say "Math is hard" because I don't want to sound like the stupid Barbie. But often don't get math. However, I do understand preferential voting and it doesn't seem especially mathy to me.

I haven't been sure how this discussion of the voting issue would go, it's been interesting to watch, I've decided not to post after the first day because I wanted to watch everything unfold. I've been rather anti 4 months simply because it wasn't an initial choice and I didn't want to complicate matters with a new choice.

There isn't a big difference between 3 and 4 but there is still a big leap between 4 and 6. So, I'm still not sure how I'm going to vote.

I thought I was going to vote for 3 months because if I wanted an issue and it was voted down then I would want a chance to reopen voting as soon as possible. But, if I won on an issue then I would want it to be up for reopening quickly which would push me towards 6 months.

Really, I'm just talking this out...

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.

But obviously someone who favors 6 wrote this paragraph! In this situation, I'm nearly totally certain that 6 will win.

But I don't want 6 to win! t mock-sobs So I don't agree. In fact....

As Burrell said, there's piss-little difference between 3 months and 4 months. What the 3-or-4 people like *first* (as I see it) is the idea of a smaller time period than half a year, and then *secondly* they differentiate between the slightly-smaller one and the slightly-larger one.

And the idea was that (here let the numeral x stand for all the people who voted for x) 4 can't win vs. 3 + 6 (which it would have to, in brenda's situation), but maybe 3 + 4 can win over 6.

So perhaps (it seems, to my mind) the ballot would most fairly look like this:

QUESTION 1

1) 6 months
2) 3 or 4 months

QUESTION 2

In the event that option 2 of Question 1 wins:

1) 3 months
2) 4 months

-- do you see what I mean?

But obviously someone who favors 6 wrote this paragraph! In this situation, I'm nearly totally certain that 6 will win.

How will 6 certainly win? If

What the 3-or-4 people like *first* is the idea of a smaller time period than half a year, and then *secondly* they differentiate between the slightly-smaller one and the slightly-larger one

is true, then 3-or-4 people will vote for one of those as their first choice, then the other as their second choice. If there are more 3-or-4 people than 6 people, then whichever of 3 or 4 has more votes as a first choice will win.

t edit: and your ballot totally cuts out people who think 4 is fine, but 3 is too short, and would therefore vote for 4 first, but for 6 in a 3 vs 6 runoff.

I thought I was going to vote for 3 months because if I wanted an issue and it was voted down then I would want a chance to reopen voting as soon as possible. But, if I won on an issue then I would want it to be up for reopening quickly which would push me towards 6 months.

Whoa. Askye brings something up for me which I hadn't thought about before. Does the moratorium only hold for things which didn't pass? Or are all decisions (both for or against) open to revisiting in 3, 4 or 6 months?

Askye used the words win to describe her not voting for something. But what if something does pass, can I bring it back open to discuss X months from now?

For example, a spoiler policy?

That's how it seemed to be leaning, to me, when it was discussed in bureacracy, Kat.