Could you give an example, Jars?

Um, what Jesse said, pretty much. Which was

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.

So, yeah. As part of the group, I feel like it's my duty to take part in votes that affect the group, but if I don't agree with either side, I want a forum for my feelings on that to be counted. For instance, as I was telling DH yesterday, if we ever move to the States and I become a citizen, I'll probably vote by spoiling my ballot, if there's no option for abstention. Of course, I realise votes on the board aren't the same thing as a general election, but I also don't see the need to take away the option of a no preference option.

Lets see if I can say option again. Option. There.

Jars, what about this question?

But does that count for anything? If enough people just vote NO can neither Smith nor Brown take office, is that the idea?

to me posting in the threads is participating. voting whatever on a ballot to meet quorum, nsm.

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

Voting NP, does not mean you don't care. I know that once an issue is raised, I care very much to a) know about it, and b) see it get settled. Even if I don't mind which way it goes.

No Preference is another way of voting present and abstaining. In my view, the purpose of the quorum is not to make sure 42 people are either FOR an issue or AGAINST an issue. Rather the quorum is to make sure 42 people are on actual notice of an issue by being present for the vote. (Obviously, a posting in press is also a form of notice, but the only way to prove someone had actual notice is with a response like a NP vote.)

The elections are not a good analogy for the voting that we do here. I sit on a non-profit board of trustees, and we hold quarterly meetings. For a meeting to proceed, we require a quorum of at least 8 trustees present. To take actions, we require majority vote. And the vote is always called: For, Against, and Abstain. This is exactly the way I see our voting procedures working now, and it makes perfect sense to me.

I didn't mean don't care in the big sense of not caring about the board, I meant about how an issue played out.

I get it - others feel different than me.

If an issue gets several NPs, it's worth taking note that a high degree of ambivalence exists on the issue.

This is my concern. If the NP makes up a majority of the vote results then I believe that the vote shouldn't pass. If that many people are ambivalent about the issue then it should be tossed back to discussion. Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

In my view, the purpose of the quorum is not to make sure 42 people are either FOR an issue or AGAINST an issue. Rather the quorum is to make sure 42 people are on actual notice of an issue by being present for the vote.

This is how I see NP. I have voted 'Present' on a couple of issues not because I didn't care, but I wanted to let the majority of interested parties rule. I wouldn't vote Yes or No to a rules change in a thread where I didn't participate, but I would vote NP to validate the vote.

FWIW, 42 still seems like a perfect number to me. I don't think things have changed significantly since we decided on that number.

Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

That doesn't work with things like thread creation because voting NP becomes equivalent to voting No.

Another way to do this is with simple majority. To win an issue must get at least 51% of the total vote count. So if an issue had three 5 people vote, 1 NO, 2 YES, and 2 NP, then it would not pass since the 2 YES would not be greater that 51% of the total vote count of 5.

I think that's a pretty elegant solution, one that I hadn't heard or considered before. Again, without knowing what the tallies of previous votes were, would this have changed any of the issues on which we've voted?

eta: I see Jon's point. Hmmm... ignore my comment.

Seems to me that NP legitimizes the vote as X number of Buffistas were interested enough to vote on the issue, but the majority should be yes/yes+no.