It sounds so easy: *"Just keep it open."* The problem is people have a bias one way or the other and these "let's leave it open/let's leave it closed" solutions always expose that bias... not the actual voting.

There are two groups of people who vote on these things; the *inclusionists* (keep them open) and the *exclusionists* (close them). **See the problem?** Right now, if a question is open, you can *only* vote to close. If it's closed, you can *only* vote to reopen. 

These so-called **"close wars" are a misnomer** for people waiting in line for their chance to vote five at a time (5-close, 5-reopen, 5-close, 5-reopen...). **Hence the yo yo effect.**

<h2>A Solution</h2>

Once someone votes to close, you can quickly capture the general consensus by letting everyone vote at once (`vote-to-open`, `vote-to-close`). The total would be shown, as it is now. Once it reaches a *total* of (-5) it's closed. If the voting later reaches (+0) it is re-open. 

**But it's *way more likely*** that a general consensus will quickly be reached without forcing the question through the close-reopen-close-reopen cycle as everyone alternately waits for their turn to vote.

Its an beautiful, simple, elegant solution. **So what am I am I missing?**

*Bonus: The system would no longer have to worry about aging votes (where close-votes eventually expire after a certain period of time). With the +/- votes shown, someone is free to counteract the random close-vote that accumulates over time.*