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.

I don't think I'd say it like that. I'm saying, if you want to have an impact on the decision, participate.

I totally agree with Cindy on this. But I don't think of NP as participating. Granted, I don't think I've ever voted NP. If I truly had no preference, I just wouldn't vote.

would posit this is why almost everything that goes to a vote passes.

Totally agree.

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?

It's neither a yes, Jon, nor as you posited if we changed it would be a No. What it seems to be is that people are tired of the issue and just want some or any resolution. In some ways it's a copping out of making a decision.

Also, frankly, if there were no NP, then an issue wouldn't reach a quorum and it would still be open to either working towards a better consensus or to being better at convincing people to one side or another.

Well, I've voted NP for parts of things. Like where you vote yes/no/np for thing a and then for further developments - where I felt strongly about thing a but didn't care one way or another about the further developments.

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

Got it. Def. something to consider.

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

Do we have stats on this? Because it seems to me that it is just a recent thing, but my perception could be skewed.

I think in all of this we should remember that the genesis of voting was to keep the imaginary people with the loud voices from skewing the consensus. It is an (admittedly imperfect) way to allow a focused discussion in a limited time frame and then poll the buffistas.

I think in all of this we should remember that the genesis of voting was to keep the imaginary people with the loud voices from skewing the consensus

What has happened instead is that a small number of loud people are still skewing it because the rest of us can't be arsed to form an opinion and we vote NP just to make the issue resolve. Or because most people are polite enough to think that an issue should pass if people feel passionate about it, that we want to give people what they want.

but if most people vote NP then they don't WANT.

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

Is this true, though? And, if it is, wouldn't removing NP have the same (but opposite) effect? That is, most items would effectively result in a "no" vote since they didn't meet the quorum?

Megan, with the difference of there not being a 6-month moritorum on the issue. So if it doesn't meet quorum it isn't resolved. It's still open for discussion.

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

OK, I just checked the last six votes we've had, going back to August 2006.

• Close Veronica Mars
• Original Cable Programming thread
• Non-Fiction TV thread
• Temporary Experimental TV threads
• Heroes thread
• Premium Cable thread

In EVERY case, the main item on the ballot would have passed with a quorum even if the NP votes were excluded. In a couple of cases, the secondary items on the ballot (e.g. white-font rules), would not have reached a quorum, but (in my opinion), those are exactly the sorts of decisions where a NP vote makes total sense. For example, you want to close the Veronica Mars thread, but don't particualrly care whether it happens today or in the fall.

What has happened instead is that a small number of loud people are still skewing it because the rest of us can't be arsed to form an opinion and we vote NP just to make the issue resolve.

I really think we should look into root causes and possible solutions if buffistas feel this way. That is, is it a perception issue, is it a new issue caused by people not understanding no preference in context, is that we are sick of all sorts of voting and just vote because of the moratorium, or many other reasons why people feel that way? Once we get to the bottom of that, we can make solutuions.

My personal experience is that I skip the vote if I just really, really don't care and that I vote no preference when I want the majority to get what they want. I understand that other people have different no preference experiences.