ita - do you have a reason?

So, Jon, do our reasons need to past muster before they are recognized as legitimate?

'Cause saying "What's your reason?" seems to imply that unless we can satisfy YOUR criteria as a legitimate reason then.... it doesn't matter?

edited for homonym issue

I'm against "just this once" on general principle.

Well, I'm against princples right now. I'm big on Trial and Error and giving us room to make the mistakes and also to take stuff out of theoretical and apply it practically. Because I think half the craziness comes from trying to anticipate all the eventualities beforehand, when it's no Big Fucking Deal to try one thing and then either discard it or build on it.

I'm with Hec on this one.

I think right now we're back to this dog eating it's own tail thing that is bound to drive me crazy. There seems to be a fundamental communication gap where people who want to try preferential voting think that if they explain it enough, peple who are against it will like it. Meanwhile, the people who are against it get more and more agianst it the more it is explained, becuase they feel like no one is listening.

Again, I don't know how to come up with a compromise. I would think that a run-off would be one.

Anyway, I am supposed to post this thing in 30 minutes and I feel really uncomfortable doing so.

I feel really quite wrong in saying anything since I missed the last thousand or so posts. So feel free to ignore me.

I have no objection to PV (I actually kinda like it a lot), but apparently serious objection exists, so I have to object to trying it just this once.

eta: being without news or internet for a few days makes me think being a beach bum is not such a bad deal.

I don't think anyone needs to justify their choices.

No one needs to justify their choices, but either we have to agree never ever to talk about preferential voting again or people are going to have to have some sort of dialog wherein a compromise can be reached. No compromise can be reached with 2 sets of people just stating their opinion.

In my original proposal I wanted 2 choices precisely for this reason. We spent more time talking about HOW to vote than talking about what we are voting on. I can't really even do an argument summary for this one because I can't see much dialog about 6 versus 3 versus 4. The mechanics of the ballot are not the most imprtant thing here.

'Cause saying "What's your reason?" seems to imply that unless we can satisfy YOUR criteria as a legitimate reason than.... it doesn't matter?

Woof. Radical interpretation of the text. What's your reasoning seems like a fair way of asking how you're thinking about it.

OK-- I am still really hesitant to post the voting announcement to press with so much disagreement about the voting method.

Here is the Press text:

Hear Ye! Hear Ye!

It is time for one of the last procedural votes.

When we first startd this discussion, we really wanted to be able to have a way to not talk about the same issue over and over and over... Here we have one.

MORATORIUM ON REOPENING DISCUSSIONS

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

3 months
4 months
6 months
No Preference

Note that the result of this vote will apply to ALL decisions, affirmative and negative.

Ballot Here

Voting starts Monday night (March 24, 2003) at midnight and closes Thursday night (Mar. 27, 2003) at midnight (that would be "Board Time", i.e. EST)

Discussion starts here: Jesse "Voting Discussion: We're Screwing In Light Bulbs AIFG!" Mar 20, 2003 8:36:53 pm EST

Please note that the vast majority of this discussion has to do with how to conduct the vote.

Although the discussion is officially closed, you may ask any questions in Bureaucracy

Remember

1. A choice needs a majority to win
2. Votes of no pref. count toward the minimum voter turnout of 42
3. Discussion is closed once the vote starts.

There is no mention of preferential/runoff voting. I still think maybe we should ait a day and try to make people feel more like a part of the process.