I don't want to be shrill, but this voting business is getting more problematic the more I think about it. We're given multiple choices per poll, but only allowed to choose one. As a result, a false consensus emerges.
Case in fucking point: Pitching stats. Currently, the results are 4-3-1. Let's assume everyone who has voted will. Well, then that one with 4 should win. But I cast that 1 vote (duh). And, well, I prefer the middle option waaaaay more than I prefer the first option. But I prefer the third most. So now my least-desirable option is going to win (without even a majority) because I voted for what I liked, instead of what's "electable"? If I had voted for my second-fave choice, we'd have a 4-4 tie. We have social scientists here... how is this situation just?
I know Omar said that the poll is unbinding, but, well, guess what--its presence has drowned any discussion of stats. No one has had anything new to say about specific stats to track besides my crack about Ortíz and Carter's call for a skeleton of statistical framework.
Now some people have explicitly stated that they're sick of this discussion, or bored, or whatever. I'm not. If you are bored, then let's empanel a commission that can hash it out, and you can ignore those blog posts and just accept what the commission comes up with, since the way this voting is going is an exercise in injustice.