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.

Huh. That's interesting. So people who propose something which is voted against get to bring it up ad infinitum as long as they follow the moratorium.

People who advocate against something and lose don't get the same priviledge?

I think moratorium means moratorium. Six months before we bring the whole painful topic up again, win or lose.

If six months should win.

As is only right.

That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?

Not that I would...

That can't be the case for thread creation, surely -- are you saying that every six months I can say "I still think a Movies thread is wrong, and we should shut it down"?

Oh, I think so. And really, I think it should be that way -- but then, I'm an anti-proliferationist. But think about it -- if we only ever open threads and never close them, we'd have a zillion threads eventually, right?