I'm with Jon and Nilly on this one.

If we say that a proposal needs 50%+1 of ALL votes, then a No Preference vote effectively becomes a No vote.

Jesus, we'll be like the Senate.

Seriously, though, one of the things that makes ballot crafting complicated some times is the effort to have everything as close to straight yes/no as possible. Since we don't have any kind of preferential voting or run-off procedure, having three options that count that way would mean a lot of things end up in plurality no-mans-land.

I think the issue is one of education. So long as people voting No Preference understand the impact of their vote (e.g., a vote of Yes-6, No-5, NP-31 would pass), I think we should let them vote that way. As I wrote above, the NP voter is essentially saying (using the same example), "I trust those 11 people to do what is best." If you disagree with that, then don't vote at all. But to not allow that option is disenfranchising.

I agree with Jon about the education. Those of us who were around for all the hashing out of voting probably remember what "no preference" means-- that is, counting toward the minimum voter turnout but not the yes or no-- but others probably don't. Also, I proposed the vote on voting and I don't even remember the rules!

Perhaps we should put a little cheat sheet on the final proposal in press telling people the minimum voter turn out, the reality of no preference, and the 50% +1 thing.

Again, Jon posts for me.

Sophia, you mean something like the "voting" part in the Law Speak page?

Those of us who were around for all the hashing out of voting probably remember what "no preference" means-- that is, counting toward the minimum voter turnout but not the yes or no-- but others probably don't.

I remember, but it still sometimes bothers me when something passes with such a small number of the board agreeing to it.

"I trust those 11 people to do what is best." If you disagree with that, then don't vote at all.

This leads me to the question, can you vote on one issue on the ballot, but abstain from the rest, without using no preference? I guess that won't count as quorum for those issues, though, since the quorum is decided on total votes counted.

can you vote on one issue on the ballot, but abstain from the rest, without using no preference?

Yes.

I agree with Jon about the education. Those of us who were around for all the hashing out of voting probably remember what "no preference" means-- that is, counting toward the minimum voter turnout but not the yes or no-- but others probably don't. Also, I proposed the vote on voting and I don't even remember the rules!

Definitely an education issue for me, and I only have myself to blame. I never really logicked out what No Preference potentially could mean in terms real numbers. Because to me, the potential for this kind of outcome:

e.g., a vote of Yes-6, No-5, NP-31 would pass

absolutely means I will change my voting habits.

ETA: And how I'd frame a ballot, should I ever do that.

Me, too, JenP. I thought No Preference actually counted, somehow. (I didn't think about it much, I admit.)

Sophia, you mean something like the "voting" part in the Law Speak page?

Nilly- like the voting part, but simpler, I think. Something like:

• You may vote yes, no, or no preferance on this ballot.
• Votes are carried by a simple majority of yes or no votes.
• There must be 42 buffistas voting in order for the vote to carry.
• The no preference option is for people who want to count towards the 42, but want whatever the majority of buffistas want to carry the day.
• Once this subject is voted on, discussion on this matter is closed for 6 months.

Only perhaps written better.

I love the Lawspeak document but have wanted to do simplified rules for some time now, however, I can't get off my ass to do it....