> > If I were tasked with interpreting the results, I would
> note that at least
> > one person who voted for (a) preferred (b). So (c) wins, 6-5-1.
>
> Yes - but that person voted (a) *specifically* to avoid (c) -
> so to use
> that tactical vote as a way to get (c) would be WRONG.
If it wasn't obvious to anyone, I was being sarcastic. The point is, anyone
can find a way to interpret the results in a manner which supports their
preference (lies, damned lies and statistics). Its the wrong way to go. My
method is no more or less acceptable than Jon's, and the outcome should not
be decided by who counts the votes.
> Look, it's a tied decision - someone had to decide - they did
> - let's move
> on.
This amounts to Jon voting twice. As much as I admire and respect Jon, I
find this unacceptable. Had he not voted, and decided to cast a
tie-breaking vote, I could accept that. But he already voted.
> > I actually think (b) is the best compromise, and I don't
> think anyone on
> > either side of the fence would strongly object to it.
>
> But *nobody* voted for it.
Yes, as you said this was tactical. At least one person would have
preferred to vote for it. In reality many voted only the following choices:
"C" vs "not C". That's the problem with a 3-way vote, as you pointed out
when you voted.
> (Yes, I know it came out the way I wanted - but you'll just
> have to take
> my word for it that I would have given up if it had come out
> the other way).
I would give up if it had "come out this way" too Steve. But it didn't! It
was a tie. If Jon had arbitrarily decided to pick 'C' as the winner, would
you accept it quietly? Given your strong opinions on this matter, I
seriously doubt it!
This thing doesn't need to go on for another month as Jon fears, but I
personally don't mind a couple more days to reach a compromise solution, or
at least a less arbitrary tie-breaker.
