I disagree very strongly with the notion that an issue that gets less than 42 YES or NO votes is either (1) not significant enough to warrant action; or (2) not debated enough and should be kicked back for more discussion.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that a vote that has a majority of no preference shouldn't go through either. I really don't like the idea of a board decision being made when a majority of the folks voting on it don't feel pro or con. Maybe the numbers can be lowered to at least 40% of the overall vote totals, but I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that a vote here could pass with 5 YES, 25 NP and 4 NO. I know that it hasn't happened, but it's set up that way and for whatever reason I'm not comfy with it.

One of the arguments for voting NP is that "we just want the question to be settled", but under your suggestion the oppssite could occur -- By voting NP (vs. not voting at all), the question does not get settled!

I guess this is part of my core issue with it. I tend to not be conflict avoidant and I don't like decisions being made to just make the issue go away. For me that feels unsettled.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that a vote that has a majority of no preference shouldn't go through either.

In my example above, only a small percentage of votes were NP. Yet that small number prevented the vote from passing.

Frank, if you'll point out what sort of definitions you're using for "active poster" then maybe I can get you stats.

Well, I feel pretty strongly that a vote that has a majority of no preference shouldn't go through either. I really don't like the idea of a board decision being made when a majority of the folks voting on it don't feel pro or con. Maybe the numbers can be lowered to at least 40% of the overall vote totals, but I'm really uncomfortable with the idea that a vote here could pass with 5 YES, 25 NP and 4 NO. I know that it hasn't happened, but it's set up that way and for whatever reason I'm not comfy with it.

I don't like the idea that YES/NO has to be any percentage of the vote totals. Dealing in hypotheticals, 40% would mean that a vote would fail with 30 Yes, 10 No, and 61 NPs.

If you're worried about a 5 Yes 4 No vote passing, then the focus should be the minimum number of those voters, not what percentage they are of the people who voted. For example, along with a quorum and majority, a vote must have at least 21 Yes votes for action to be taken.

In my example above, only a small percentage of votes were NP. Yet that small number prevented the vote from passing.

Hmm, yes, this is problem. I was looking at it from the angle of a large number of NP votes with a small number of YES or NO votes. Is there a way to deal with one without skewing the other.

If you're worried about a 5 Yes 4 No vote passing, then the focus should be the minimum number of those voters, not what percentage they are of the people who voted. For example, along with a quorum and majority, a vote must have at least 21 Yes votes for action to be taken.

Wolfram makes a good point here. How would be go about instituting a minimum action vote number. It shouldn't be skewed for only YES votes since a proposal could be written to take advantage of that where a negative outcome on the vote actual enacts a policy.

Perhaps I don't trust voting, this might have to do with the referendum system here in California.

It shouldn't be skewed for only YES votes since a proposal could be written to take advantage of that where a negative outcome on the vote actual enacts a policy.

Along with a quorum and majority, a vote must have at least 21 Yes votes or 21 No votes for action to be taken and/or for the issue to go to moratorium.

It could be written better, and I'm not sure 21 is the right number, but the gist is there.

This looks like a more complicated way of getting the same result as not counting No Preference votes towards the quorum.

Perhaps I don't trust voting, this might have to do with the referendum system here in California.

Let the record show that ND for one welcomes our new insect overlords.

Frank, if you'll point out what sort of definitions you're using for "active poster" then maybe I can get you stats.

I just meant those breakdowns of who X number of posts in a given thread every month (or time period - it might have been by the life of the thread). Thinking about it further, I'm not sure how useful it is since I think it was mainly Natter that was being looked at.