Let the group choose with a quick, fair vote, designed so the result is clear and trusted.
Voting is the most familiar way for a group to choose, and one of the fastest. Everyone gets a say, the count is visible, and people tend to accept a result they helped make. But a careless vote can mislead: a winner backed by only a handful of people, or a room that quietly copies the boss. A little design up front makes all the difference.
Before anyone votes, decide three things. How many votes each person gets, and whether they can stack them. How votes are cast: openly with sticky dots, or privately on paper or online. What happens if it's close: usually, drop the weakest options and vote again. Then vote, count, and check that the result makes sense to everyone.
Use it when a group needs to choose quickly from a list, when everyone's view should count equally, or when you want the whole group to own the result.
Dot voting at a library open evening, three votes each. Three ideas pulled clearly ahead of the rest.
Does everyone understand every option well enough to vote on it?
How many votes does each person get, and can they stack them?
Will people be swayed by seeing how others vote?
Has everyone had the same chance to vote, in the same way?
Is there a clear result, and does it make sense?
If the result is muddy, which options can you drop before a second round?
Voting is simple, but a few small design choices decide whether the result is clear, fair and accepted.
When each person has a say, the result belongs to the whole group. People are far more likely to support a decision, even one they voted against, when they took part in making it.
If you can vote for everything, votes mean nothing. Giving each person only a few makes them choose, so the ideas the group truly prefers rise above the rest.
Visible votes can start a bandwagon: later voters drift toward whatever is already popular, or toward the boss's choice. Secret or simultaneous voting protects each person's real preference.
A first vote often leaves a cluster of near-ties. Dropping the weakest options and voting again concentrates support until a clear winner emerges.
Make sure every option is clear and distinct. Merge duplicates so they don't split the vote, and let people ask questions. Thin a very long list first with Negative Selection.
Decide how many votes each person gets (about a third of the number of options is a common rule of thumb), whether votes can be stacked, and whether they carry weights such as 3, 2 and 1.
Open dot voting is quick and visible. If rank, strong personalities or politics might sway people, use paper slips or an online poll, or have everyone vote at the same moment.
Set a clear time limit, then tally the votes and show the result so everyone can see it. Ask whether any strong idea was missed or misunderstood.
If the top is a cluster of near-ties, drop the options with the fewest votes and vote again on the rest. Agree beforehand how a final tie will be broken.
The options on a wall or screen, sticky dots or paper ballots (or a free online poll), a timer and 10–20 minutes. With AI, use the prompt below.
Who: a town library branch and 48 residents at an open evening. Scheme: three sticky dots each, one per idea. Method: everyone places dots during the same 10-minute break.
Staff merged eight suggestions into six and put each on a poster with a photo and one line on what it would involve.
Three dots each, to match the three slots the room could offer, and only one dot per idea, so no one could stack their votes.
Dots went up all at once during the break, and staff placed theirs last so they wouldn't steer residents.
Homework help 41, repair café 36, seniors' tech help 30, then a gap down to teen game nights 19, history talks 12 and the seed library 6.
Few teenagers had come to an evening meeting, so the library ran a short online vote at the high school. Game nights won a monthly slot.
Homework help, the repair café and tech help got weekly slots. A sense-check gave teen game nights a monthly one.
AI shouldn't vote for your group. It doesn't live with the result, and an AI preference would undercut the point of asking people. Where it shines is the design around the vote: tidying the options, picking a scheme that suits your numbers, spotting risks to fairness and helping you read a messy result.
Rewrite the options so none wins just because it's described better.
Rewrite these 8 options as short, neutral ballot lines of similar length. Merge any duplicates.
Get a voting scheme matched to your group size, list and goal.
We have 30 people and 9 options and want a clear top 3. Suggest a scheme: votes each, stacking, weights.
Find ways the vote could be skewed, and how to prevent them.
Who might be left out or swayed in our vote? Suggest three changes that would make it fairer.
Interpret near-ties and decide whether a run-off is worth it.
Here are our vote counts. Is there a clear winner? If not, design a run-off and a tie-break rule.
Describe your group and options, pick a mode, then copy the prompt into Claude, ChatGPT, Gemini or Copilot. In coach mode the AI helps you design the vote step by step, waits while your group votes, then helps you read the result.
The “Open in” links put the prompt in the web address. If your challenge includes anything sensitive, copy and paste instead.
After the session, click one to copy it, then paste it into the same chat.