No vote has to equal no preference, I'd say.

I remember this argument.

A vote of No preference counts toward the minimum number of buffistas needed to make a vote count. No vote does not- they left the question blank.

What Sophia said. Nova -- you can always resubmit your ballot.

Huh. Had I known that rule, I probably would have left it a no-vote anyway.

Huh. Had I known that rule, I probably would have left it a no-vote anyway.

Why? So we could talk about it again?

Maybe we need a PSA (in Press?) to newer members, about the reasons behind the "no preference" option on our ballots?

I'm too gronky to even begin to think what it should say, but should there be something?

Shouldn't the Closing Previously vote note that further discussion will be in the still-open Angel thread? I know that, but not everyone has really been following all the whyfores and goings on, and it might not be clear.

See, I agree with that, but I didn't think of it and no one mentioned it before the vote went up. But I don't think it's a big enough deal to edit the ballot over -- worst-case scenario, people get confused enough that Angel Previously isn't archived, and we have a dead thread sitting around until we can vote on it again.

Maybe we need a PSA (in Press?) to newer members, about the reasons behind the "no preference" option on our ballots?

Couldn't hurt. I can't do clever, but something like, "Buffista ballots include the "no preference" option because some people may want to vote on one or more issues on a ballot, but not care about others. In addition, we have a quorum of 42 votes required for a ballot to count, so some people vote "no preference" just to ensure we don't fall short of that. "No preference" votes aren't counted as either yeses or nos, and the choice with the majority of the votes outside the "no preferences" still wins."

Also, did we ever figure out what would happen if "no preference" got a majority?

Also, did we ever figure out what would happen if "no preference" got a majority?

This:

>the choice with the majority of the votes outside the "no preferences" still wins."

would still apply.

Couldn't hurt. I can't do clever, but something like, "Buffista ballots include the "no preference" option because some people may want to vote on one or more issues on a ballot, but not care about others. In addition, we have a quorum of 42 votes required for a ballot to count, so some people vote "no preference" just to ensure we don't fall short of that. "No preference" votes aren't counted as either yeses or nos, and the choice with the majority of the votes outside the "no preferences" still wins."

That sounds good, although (and I learned this in the hardest of ways) you really mean "most votes" rather than (the current definition of) "majority."

Also, did we ever figure out what would happen if "no preference" got a majority?

It's not an issue. Say we have 100 people vote on this ballot, and for question #1, 90 vote "no-preference", 6 vote "no", and 4 vote "yes". The "no" votes win. There were still 42 or more votes on the issue. Of those votes that expressed an opinion, more were saying "no" than were saying "yes".

Law Speak.