I get the idea that looking at active posters we could get a better idea of what should constitute a quorum.

Which is funny, because that's how we wound up with the 42 quorum to begin with -- we looked at some number for active posters, took a vote where everybody could pick a quorum number, and averaged the results.

Maybe that's what we should do then, gang: Hold another vote where people can pick a quorum number, and re-average the results. It's almost guaranteed to come out higher.

Maybe, to prevent too much gaming of the system, we should put in a minimum (the old quorum number of 42, perhaps) and a maximum (Our historical high voter turnout? Our best guess at number of active posters?). And when the results are tallied, before we run the average, we drop a certain number of max results and min results. Maybe half of each?

In the original discussion about the turnout numbers and etc., Sophia put together a summary of the arguments, and I think they are all pretty much still the same: Sophia Brooks "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 15, 2003 10:51:05 pm PST

At this point, I don't know if we need to re-do the vote number question. On the one hand, most ballots have had more voters, so why bother. On the other hand, do we want to ensure that a greater number of people weigh in on any given issue? Would making a higher number just create more agita on ballots that don't meet the minimum, and is that worth it?

I'm still planning on putting "Should we get rid of No Preference?" as a ballot question.

I'm kind of torn. We've tossed a bunch of ideas that I've considered before as well, but the more we talk about it, the more I think we should just leave the system alone.

I've particularly been in favor of getting rid of no preference, but with the points raised in this discussion, I think needs to be qualified -- there are clearly some (rare) issues where the No Preference option is kind of needed, or at least beneficial, and not having it might be harmful.

Maybe eliminating No Preference for thread creation questions only? That's our primary use of voting, so it eliminates it on the questions we most deal with, but doesn't prevent it from being an option in other cases where a No Preference option might be warranted.

I think if the number of active posters has increased since the quorum was established it makes sense to increase the quorum but is there an effective way to gauge that?

I doubt that is has. People come and go.

In the original discussion about the turnout numbers and etc., Sophia put together a summary of the arguments, and I think they are all pretty much still the same

I think I am having stress flashbacks!!!!

I think that our active and semi active user base has stayed about the same-- I would guess right around a hundred. Active, in my mind would be either posts votes or donates.

I've always felt that No Preference was more about being engaged in the process and meeting quorum than an "I don't care" statement. Perhaps "present" or "abstain" is more descriptive of how I think of it. A way to indicate that you are here and paying attention and taking part even if neither side fully persuades you.

That said, I'd rather lose the No Preference option for primary issues (leaving it as an option for secondary questions) than start complicating the process with percentages, etc.

Ultimately, I think it's highly unlikely that simply losing No Preference (again, on primary ballot questions only) would affect the results of any given vote.

Last thoughts, not different than the first thoughts, although I do have a better understanding of the objections to NP.

I don't feel the numbers have changed enough to justify changing the quorum threshold. It makes sense to me that the proposer can choose whether to include NP, but if it bugs people that much I'll deal with losing the option.

Oh, voting should be today, right? I'm going to be out for most of the day, so I think this is what I want for the ballot:

Should we eliminate "No Preference" as an option on future ballots? Yes/No/No Preference

In a multi-part ballot, should the quorum number be made by the responses to the "primary" question, or must the quorum of 42 be met on all parts of the ballot? (For example, if the primary question is "Buffistas: talky meat? Y/N" with a sub-question of "If yes, talky meat, or the talkiest meat?" the quorum would only have to be met on the first question.) Primary Only/All Parts/No Preference.

Voting starts tomorrow afternoon (four days of discussion started the afternoon of 5/15). But thanks.

Also, I don't think your second question is something we should vote on. I think that "primary only" should be part and parcel of the first question. Otherwise, if for some reason "All Parts" passed, we'd need a way to deal with those situations where a thread is created, but no spoiler policy is resolved.