I had been talking about vote counts over in Bureaucracy and, in my mind, somewhat conflating the idea with our quorum vote. THey are separate things but related, I think.

One possible idea, I think, is to decide that a vote must pass by more than a simple majority (60%, 70%) and not worry about the minimum vote total. I don't think the minimum vote amount has ever factored into a decision so it seems irrelevant. However, requiring more consensus before creating a thread might prompt us to work for more consensus and/or be more creative in our thread creation proposals.

Waits for someone to bring up preferential voting

Takes can opener from Frank, so he can't open any more cans of worms.

Takes can opener from Frank, so he can't open any more cans of worms.

Hee. My nickname at work is the can opener, because I'm always finding problems within problems within problems.

well, my only point is that we seem to be trying to make it harder to create threads and requiring more agreement does that, ragrdless of how many people care enough to vote.

( of course, I wasn't here yet for the original voting debacle so I haven't seen inside the can yet.)

So if we pegged it as high as 72 and eliminated No Preference, then only three of the last seven threads would've been enacted.

Not all of those votes were about opening threads. Of the last five(I don't have time to go back and really do this right now), three were about opening threads (if you consider the votes to open Procedurals and Comedy separately, even though they were on the same ballot), one was about closing a thread, and one was about supporting the WGA strike.

Gaming thread: 83 total; 76 Y/N
Strike support: 65 total; 64 Y/N
Close Firefly thread: 73 total; no NP option
Open Procedurals: 76 total; 65 Y/N
Open Comedy: 76 total; 61 Y/N

Stephanie, a larger consensus or the need to reach what is consensus is actually, I think, what moved us to voting. People felt that the talkiest people pushed their way through the process with consensus.

With voting, the talky people get to talk to their hearts content (well, at least for 4 days, then they have to shut it), even if others are irked or annoyed by it. Then everyone gets a vote and the vote is the thing that matters. It made it more so that the quieter voices still got heard.

Did anyone hear the thing about Republican House of Reps voting as "present" on the funding bill? It cracked me up because for them it was intended, I think, as a protest (and possibly political coverage?) Made me laugh.

If No Preference never matters, then why have it?

I heard that on NPR this morning and laughed and laughed. I didnt even know they could vote present.

As to the rest, I will just watch and see what develops. (I guess I am one of the quieter types.)

I’m kind of a fan of the no preference option, although my reasons are more real-worldy and less board-related. In RL, I’m a serious campaigner for an abstention option on every ballot. I’m not sure if those issues have ever been relevant in a board vote, but I’d be loathe to take away someone’s right to engage in a vote without wanting to support an argument on either side.

I’d be loathe to take away someone’s right to engage in a vote without wanting to support an argument on either side.

I like the phrasing of that, it clarifies my own feelings on No Preference. I see NP as a statement of "Yes, I've listened to your arguments but neither of you have persuaded me that one of you is more right than the other. However, this needs to be settled, so I am voting." If an issue gets several NPs, it's worth taking note that a high degree of ambivalence exists on the issue. Granted, that doesn't make a difference to the actual issue once it's decided, but as a gauge of the mindset of the board it can be very useful.