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.

I am unable to see how eliminating NP is keeping people down - if people are ambivilent to an issue, why do they care that it gets resolved? why don't they just step away from the discussion or MARCIE the people they are bothered by, if staying away from a discussion requires more self-control than they can muster?

I am lost at the need to participate in deciding on something you don't care about.

I am lost at the need to participate in deciding on something you don't care about.

This is why I made the point about not being sure if my issues with it have ever come up on the board. The votes always seem to be a binary, yes/no, kind of a thing. But if there's ever a vote that's not binary, that's an either/or vote, then I'd really want the no preference vote there.

I think we make everything a yes no vote because of the "no preferential voting" thing. Which doesn't seem to be documented anywhere except the places where it is SEARED INTO MY BRAIN.

But if there's ever a vote that's not binary, that's an either/or vote, then I'd really want the no preference vote there.

As I mentioned earlier, I think this has only happened when there's a sub-vote to the main proposal, i.e. spoilers or not, or waiting period.

But if there's ever a vote that's not binary, that's an either/or vote, then I'd really want the no preference vote there.

Could you give an example, Jars? I'm having trouble picturing what you mean.

I can see wanting to participate in a vote even though you aren't choosing a side, as a way of registering that you are here in the Buffista Town Hall, as it were, paying attention but still not convinced of which way to go. Would a formal abstention that does not count towards the quorum satisfy that desire?

Could you give an example, Jars? I'm having trouble picturing what you mean.

It makes sense in elections. Do I have to vote for Smith or Brown, or can I just vote NO -- registering dissent with the choices and not dropping out of the process.