Could you explain how you get to the "neutral" votes? I didn't see the neutral options, yet somehow it seems be counted and some sort of meaning attached to what people didn't vote for?
What is the logic behind the derivation of neutral?
Having an other would be an easy start for a catch all. 
And not including negative options. You can't possibly include all options. And for something and at the same time voting against something just doesn't work for me. I did mention that before though .
They are sum of the Not most for or against votes.
The poll allows the collation of definitive "I most support" and "I most oppose".
at the same time it allows for collation of the "I neither most support nor most oppose" by what they don't choose.
We don't know whether that represents something they support but not as strongly as their 'I most support' choice, or conversely whether it represents something they oppose but not as strongly as what their 'I most oppose'.
It is essentially boolean logic.
Note: I made the conscious decision to provide Most supported and Most opposed rather than Most supported and 'second choice' on the basis that:
First and second choice gives you an clear indication of what someone definately supports and what they would prefer if that first choice became untenable.
It does not however indicate whether the 3 option is opposed, merely that it isn't as prefered as the other 2.
First and Opposed choice however gives a much clearer indication of what a voter definately does and does not support an option - it does still leave a grey area but this time in the middle for the option that they neither support the most or oppose the most.
It is by no means a perfect representation, it is merely an attempt to optimise the resolution of the choices in a way that gives the clearest picture of most and least support while shifting the lower resolution to the 2nd choice given the constraints of the limited options of the format, tools available and time/effort required.
It could be beneficial to run 2 other polls each representing the boolean alternatives(first and second choice - 2nd and opposed choice) to help further improve the resolution, but there will always be areas of lower resolution and variables outside of our control.
You know, the time for 'other' options and expressing negative opinions was two plus years ago. Now is the time for solutions and proposals. With the greatest of respect, I think you would struggle with any poll because you are, hitherto, unwilling or unable to decide your optimum Brexit outcome.
The problem with polls is there is no end result, also they reflect nothing and can be misleading or misread.
I think you miss my point. None of what TB has put up is agreeable by me. If he refrained from putting a positive vote and a negative vote together in one question then I would not have had a problem .
But hey this isn't about me,I was merely expressing early on that this poll is flawed and as such you won't get a significant vote to deduct a meaningful outcome. At least I spoke up and attempted to let the OP know, but as he isn't interested then so be it. I won't loose any sleep over it.
Just like the other thread for this week where I also highlighted that it was flawed and was proven right, reality will turn into something that wasn't included.
Yet I have explained above the reasons for that based on the analysis of the logical benefits and contraints against the resolution of the data.
That fact that you had to ask and seemingly were not aware of why and how I chose and derived information from the poll, given that it is pretty basic boolean logic could well be an indicator of why you don't seem to understand why I took umbridge to your criticisms of the poll.
Especially given your alleged experience, knowledge and skills you often use to support your arguments and critiques of myself and others in the areas of Information Technology/security, data and analytics etc.
I would have assumed you would be more than capable of spotting and understanding simple boolean logic, how to derive simple calculations from it and what the constraints are.
Maybe that indicates a need for a learning experience for us both ....
Opinion should always be assumed, unless clearly stated otherwise. It'd be a boring world if we only ever had discussions based purely on facts.
No Deal - 3 Against, 2 Neutral
May's Deal - 3 Against, 44 Neutral
Revoke article 50 - 6 For, 3 Neutral
So far that at least gives us some indication(at least of forum members) that:
On the balance of most supported and most opposed, both Leave with No Deal and May's Deal are equally popular - with a negative score* of 3.
While Revoke article 50 has a positive score of6.
*(the difference in the number of people diametrically opposing than most wanting to see happen)
That leaves the massive grey area of the Neutrals.
No Deal has a score of 2.
May's has a score of 44.
Revoke has a score of 3.
Both No Deal and Revoke have a fairly similar number of Neutrals, while May's deal has a dramatic and significant amount.
We do know from most sources of information that May's deal is universally unpopular, so at the very least we can assume that a significant amount of the neutral score it received is basically due to it merely being the least hated rather than the 2nd most wanted.
That however is still opinion and conjecture.
Further more, it's just a poll on a forum.
It does however help give some limited insight into just how big an unknown it all is and how the binary choices the electorate were given are completely insufficient and inadequate for making decisions and policy on what they are supposed to bindingly represent.
I'm not sure you can cancel out the votes for with the votes against like that, but they're your numbers so I guess you can play with them however you want 