If the 3 and 4 people can't come to an agreement, I propose we do an old-fashioned runoff. Have 6, 4, and 3 on the first ballot, if nothing gets 50%+1, vote again for the top two. It's not like this is so urgent it can't wait a few more days.

We need to agree that if an issue has more than two reasonable potential choices, there should Not be a strong bias towards limiting it to two choices - not if there is any significant support for a third option.

Concur. I think people have kicked it around enough that there is no strong bias on the low end towards 3 or 4, and that all options will need to be on the ballot.

Preferable if we could've gotten the ballot to two choices, but in this instance the most fair thing is to include 3, 4 and 6 on the ballot (and hope that 6 gets more than 50%).

It will have to be either a runoff or preferential voting, and I'm seeing an inclination for just doing the runoff now. However, there was tentative consensus (at one time) to just try the preferential voting and see how it worked. I don't care either way, but I'm willing to try the preferential voting to see how the community responds to it. Because that would make future votes easier. Also, I'll just reiterate the point brought up before - it may be the preferential voting is only difficult in the abstract. Once people do it a few times it might become more obvious. I'm willing to allow a learning curve on this.

As somebody noted in Bureaucracy, we've put ourself in a somewhat difficult position where we aren't really just discussing the issues, but crafting the ballot over here. That's okay - I think there's been enough discussion that folks see three viable options that need to be considered.

As somebody noted in Bureaucracy, we've put ourself in a somewhat difficult position where we aren't really just discussing the issues, but crafting the ballot over here. That's okay - I think there's been enough discussion that folks see three viable options that need to be considered.

Eh, maybe. But what if someone today says "5. I like 5." does 5 go on the thing?

It's not like we're reinventing the wheel. I think I'm with JET on the whole mess.

Personally, I'd be happier with letting whatever got 34% win than with doing a runoff -- this is just not that important. But I know the People spoke against letting things win with less than 50%+.

Eh, maybe. But what if someone today says "5. I like 5." does 5 go on the thing?

Nobody has. Somebody please draft a ballot so we can start nitpicking.

Personally, I'd be happier with letting whatever got 34% win than with doing a runoff -- this is just not that important. But I know the People spoke against letting things win with less than 50%+.

IIRC, there was a vote.

Congratulations to all on the debate. At no time did anyone resort to hurling the epithet 'sixist'. Very civilized.

Discussion: NOW - 3/24/03 11:59 pm EST
Voting: 3/25/03 12 am EST - 3/28/03 12:00 am EST

PROPOSED BALLOT:

After a proposal, discussion and vote, further discussion on a given matter should be closed for:

3 months
4 months
6 months
No Preference

If no choice receives more than 50% of the votes, we will have a runoff between the top two vote-getters.

Note that this will apply to ALL decisions, affirmative and negative.

Jesse-- can you add "no preference" (Grrrr)? Also should we have some language that this applies to affirmative as well as negative votes?

Sure. I'll edit.