I no longr care about what is done with options 5 and 6, but there is something said here that is utterly wrong, and I have to speak up about it:
Jn: In my humble opinion, Option 5 is mathematically correct. One may not have more decimal places in a quotient than existed in the dividend and divisor. 80% of 69 votes is 55 votes, and that is what Option 5 achieved.
First of all, this rule about decimal places is only correct in certain contexts. It is used when dealing the uncertainty over measurements in a scientific setting. But there is absolutely no uncertainty here ... there were exactly 55 votes for option 5 or earlier, and 14 votes for option 6 or not at all. If measurements are exact you may take the quotient out to as many decimal places as needed. When comparing a quotient to another number, say 0.8 (which is what 80% is) there is every reason to take out the quotient to as many places to give you the correct answer. Rounding at some arbitrary point, and using that rounding to establish an improper relationship between two numbers, even if it seems "natural", is improper and incorrect. 55/69 < 0.8. This is a simple fact. No amount of rounding can actually change it, though it may mislead one into thinking something false, such as 55/69 >= 0.8.
Second of all, if this decimal rule is followed, the resultant quotient is 1, not 0.80!!! Folks, percentages contain two implied decimal places. The percentage XY% is a shorthand way of writing 0.XY. It is nothing more than that. 55/69 = 0.797 ... But if we follow the rule, then we must round to the nearest one's place, so 55/69 = 1. This rule is clearly wrong in this context. Attempting to apply this rule to a percentage, which is a convention of convenience, is the height of arbitrariness. The dividend and divisor are writtten out to the one's place, so the quotient is written out to the hundredth place??? That is a strange thing to claim.
If those in power want to fudge the results of this vote that is their business. I don't really care anymore. But mathematically this is an affront. Do not claim that this result passes mathematical muster. It simply does not, and no amount of arbitrary and convenient rounding will make it so.
edit: spelling