Wikipedia talk:Preliminary Deletion/Vote2

If no option manages to grab more than 70% of the vote, the votes for choices two until four shall be added to the tally for the first choice. This is sneaky and objectionable. Eclecticology 20:11, 2004 Dec 9 (UTC)

How so? I'm not very sure, as nobody brought this up the first time (when we had exactly the same kind of clause), and you haven't elaborated on it yourself. Isn't acceptance of the basic proposal itself implicit if a voter selects one of those options? Johnleemk | Talk 12:07, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
No. The unclear voting practice used to offer these options shows the amateurishness of Wikipedia policy voting conventions. The preferred way to do this in assemblies is as follows:
  1. Open the floor on the main issue (i.e. should we have preliminary deletion)
  2. Invite, and vote upon, amendments to the main issue (i.e. should we only allow keep votes, etc.)
  3. Apply passed amendments to the issue
  4. Then, vote on the issue as amended
Why? Because people may decide that they ONLY want the issue to pass if and only if certain amendments are made. The passing of those amendments may make or break their support of the issue.
This is why now you have people adding their own options, such as "Yes, but only if you do X and/or Y."
As a result, in order to determine consensus, the proposer has decided to make assumptions as to the wishes of those who support amended versions of the question. Those assumptions are invalid and unfounded -- they are made with the belief that those who want amended versions of the policy enacted will be OK with the policy if those amendments aren't accepted. As a result, votes may actually be tallied incorrectly.
That's a big part of "how so". - [[User:KeithTyler|Keith D. Tyler [flame]]] 20:13, Dec 10, 2004 (UTC)
Agree with Keith. This vote is broken. I can still vote because my answer is an unqualified "no", but the sub-options are suspect. And observations like these should become part of a policy or how-to somewhere. We need more professional voting. JRM 15:50, 2004 Dec 12 (UTC)