In practice, a NP vote has historically been equivalent to a Yes.

Wait, I don't get this. If the 50%+1 needed to pass a resolution only includes the Yes and No votes, and does not include the NP votes, how has NP been treated as a Yes vote? The only way this makes sense to me is if TPTB said, we got 10 Nos and 5 Yeses, but 30 NPs, so it passes!

Isn't the purpose of the quorum to prevent small majorities from enacting preferences?

This is a good point.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean by skewing the result-- do you mean that it "appears" to be a larger majority than it would otherwise be? If the result of the vote is the same, then what difference does it make in practice that one side won by one vote or 30?

I don't want to make a proposal, well, period. But what do people think of a moratorium question on a vote? You can see the real numbers of yes and no votes, and if we don't reach a quorum, we can still enact a moratorium.

The more I think about it, the more I think no preference voting obviates the requirement of a quorum.

This is actually why I suggested raising the "quorum". I think a lot of people want the opportunity to vote 'just shut up about it already" or "I am willing to be happy with whatever the most people want"

In practice, a NP vote has historically been equivalent to a Yes.

Why? Because most items have passed, but wouldn't have if a quorum hadn't been reached? I'd need to check the vote tallies to be sure, but I'm pretty certain that only the last couple of votes have had low enough turnout where a quorum would not have been reached if we'd excluded the NP votes. Historically, total votes cast have been close to 100, or at least the high 2 digits. The NP votes had no effect on the outcome.

I'm saying there are four of us who want a change, and we really want it, and we're very vocal about it. And there are ten people who really don't want the change, but they're not as fond of arguing as we are, or they don't want to hurt our feelings.

So No-Preference person comes along, skims the discussion, and says "gee, it seems like everyone really wants to make this change, guess I'll go with that."

If the result of the vote is the same, then what difference does it make in practice that one side won by one vote or 30?

In the out of my ass example before, the result isn't the same. 20 Yes/30 No/20 NP is quite different from 40 Yes/30 No

I'm saying there are four of us who want the change, and we really want it, and we're very vocal about it. And there are ten people who really don't want the change, but they're not as fond of arguing as we are, or they don't want to hurt our feelings.

Then the vote should be 4 Yes, 10 No, and a bunch of NP. Closes the discussion and the majority that cared won. Gotta say No to the purple though. Not voting NP on that.

If you don't care what happens, abstain.

But if you do care what happens, as in--something does, but don't care which of the choices happens, then what?

Wait, I don't get this. If the 50%+1 needed to pass a resolution only includes the Yes and No votes, and does not include the NP votes, how has NP been treated as a Yes vote?

Because:

most items have passed, but wouldn't have if a quorum hadn't been reached

The number of proposals which haven't passed can be counted on one hand. Without thumbs.

I agree that the reason that most proposals pass is that ideas never make it that far if there isn't support. I could be wrong, it happens, often.

I'm saying there are four of us who want a change, and we really want it, and we're very vocal about it. And there are ten people who really don't want the change, but they're not as fond of arguing as we are, or they don't want to hurt our feelings.

So No-Preference person comes along, skims the discussion, and says "gee, it seems like everyone really wants to make this change, guess I'll go with that."

This makes sense. I see what you are saying. My preference would be that when a party does not have a preference, they let the vote shake out as it will, rather than trying to predict it. No preference voting admittedly *blindly* amplifies the majority, but I would prefer the majority remain un-amped.

ETA:

But if you do care what happens, as in--something does, but don't care which of the choices happens, then what?

I don't understand this at all. You want something to happen, even if that something is nothing? How would abstaining be different? Unless you are saying that by voting you want the matter to be settled, in which case I think we should add a moratorium category that can reach a quorum independent of the vote at hand.