I remember not finding Jon's statistics overwhelming at the time, so here is his original post on voting percentages: [link]

My response at the time was that, of the six threads, two hit 42, and a third was on whether we should close Veronica Mars and when -- as I recall it, the point that everyone disputed was when we should close it, not if we should close it, and so the no preferences carried the day on that vote.

Since that time several new threads have been created with more than 42 votes.

That's definitely fair.

At the time, we didn't know if we were going to see a lot of things go all the way through lightbulbs and voting and then just...stop with no resolution because it was a small or limited issue.

I think we've seen that's not the case. I'm ready to let go of it.

Yeah. If we don't need it, we don't need it.

Hey, I do have a suggestion after all. We could agree that if a quorum is reached on any question of a multi-question proposal, then the quorum is considered to have been reached for all parts of the proposal.

Excellent idea. But I would amend that to say RELATED questions in a multi-question proposal. For instance, if the ballot included several new threads proposals and all receive more yeas than nays, I don't think they all should be opened if only one of them reaches the quorum.

How about Dependent Questions - anything that is along the lines of "If Q1 passes then we need to decide this other thing" doesn't have to pass quorum as long as Q1 does.

Somebody remind me, if a proposal doesn't have 42+ votes can it be brought up again before 6 months?

I don't understand voting if you have no preference but if other people want to I think the option should be available. I like that the person who suggests a proposal has the option of framing the voting how they see fit.

Now, if we'd never had the whole no preference discussion, one could just introduce it ad hoc on a vote by vote basis, no?

Just like I could put forth a vote and frame it as being totted up preferentially? How much control do I actually have?

I hate no preference on ballots. I guess I fall into the camp of "If you don't have an opinion, don't vote."

Thinking of other voting times, it's pretty rare that you get a No Preference option (Presidential candidates []republican []democrat []don't really care).

And it just seems like such a cop-out. Voting is about deciding, about choosing. And saying, No Preference seems to be saying, "I don't want to choose. I want other people to decide for me. I want people to get what they want, but I don't want to be a part of that process of knowing what the fuck is going on and choosing."

I could put forth a vote and frame it as being totted up preferentially?

you can? neat.

Apparently No Preference is an official voting choice, not just an option? [link]

Sophia Brooks: "You may vote yes, no or abstain from the vote for each separate item. Obviously, you may only vote once." It is up to the proposer (when writing the ballot) to determine what sort of vote it will be. The simplest option is a yes/no/no preference vote, but other kinds of votes have successfully been tried.