I vote "no preference" when it is important to me that an issue is settled, but not important to me how it is settled. What's important to me, is that most of the Buffistas who care which way it is settled are happy. Otherwise, the only information I have on which to base my opinion is the expressed opinions of my fellow talky meat. I already know what they want, because they make it plain. When I vote no preference, I am voting for:

1) Everyone to have to shut up for 6 months

2) To make the most Buffistas who care about an issue happy

I'd hate to have the no preference either changed or taken away.

More than once, I've "voted with a bullet" on ballots in local, and state elections, i.e. where I can choose mulitple candidates, I only choose one. In essence, I'm saying I have no preference among most of the candidates, and I have my reasons for it.

The same is true when when I vote no preference here. The people who don't like "no preference" can exclude it from the ballots they craft, and can choose never to pick it on a ballot where it has been included. Those of us who like it have our reasons for selecting it, and just because you don't find them compelling to you, it doesn't follow that it's not compelling to us.

t sits by Cindy

t offers chocolate frog

You know, every now and then it just pops into my head that Cindy is perfect.

this is why I like Kat's "No More No Preference" idea. Let each proposal stand or fall on the nuber of yes/no votes only.

Okay, I'll put this stirring stick down and slowly back away now...

I guess that means you aren't going to actually make a proposal?

typoboy made a really good argument for NP votes

I may be stupid, but I really don't understand.

Ah well, if no one is going to make a proposal, I'm not going to try to figure it out.

If NP doesn't count for quorum, then if 42 people vote, 22 yes and 20 no, it passes. If 22 yes, 19 no, and 1 no preference, it doesn't pass. However, it isn't dead.

If I'm reading him right, it seems unfair that my no vote helped it pass, where an NP wouldn't.

But if NP does count for quorum then there's nothing I could do.

I think...

Here's how I interpret that, Burrell.

Proposal A is on the table. I hate it.

The votes come in.

30 of you are wrongheaded and vote yes.

10 of us know what's what and vote no.

2 of you vote no preference.

42 votes. Yes wins.

But let's say no preference doesn't count towards the totals. By switching my one vote to no pref, we're left with:

30 yes

9 no

3 no preference.

39 votes that count.

No wins by default.

You can still argue whether that's a good thing or not, or how likely it is to happen, but it does seem kind of off.

No wins by default.

Refresh an ailing mind--if we don't meet quorum, we can propose it again right away, right?

Oh, yup. So it could still be reproposed.

You can still argue whether that's a good thing

As it is now, it saves us from having to do it, again. That's sort of the point.

A proposal is floated. 42 people vote.

20 vote no. 19 vote yes. 3 vote no preference. The No vote wins. We all shut up for six months (this is KEY).

or

20 vote yes. 19 vote no. 3 vote no preference. The Yes vote wins. We all shut up for six months (again, KEY).

If we can't even get 42 to people to show up at all (even to vote no preference) then it remains open (KEY in a bad way).

Those who really don't want to get involved, already don't vote. I don't think we ever have anything approaching 100% of our regular posters voting, never mind the entire mass of registered Buffistas. The no preference voters want an issue settled in a way such that the majority of invested people win. I love that about our vote, because it all goes back to the key issue of shutting up, which is why we started voting, anyhow.

someone a while back asked for a definition of "binary walk". Gar provided one here.

'Twas I. Thanks, Jon (and Gar).