Critical Hit Effect: The Warhound's Plasma reactor has been damaged. Roll a D6 for the Warhound in the end phase of every turn: on a roll of 1 the reactor explodes destroying the Warhound, on a roll of 2-3 the Warhound suffers one more point of damage, and on a roll of 4-6 the reactor is repaired and will cause no further trouble. If the reactor explodes, any units within 5cms of the Warhound will be hit on a 6+.

Critical Hit Effect: A secondary explosion causes further damage to the Warhound, and it loses 1 point of Damage Capacity

At this point, I think a "no change" option should be provided.
While I accept the view that there may be a 'mandate' for change, a straight choice does not provide a view how strong the vote for either proposal actually is. Adding the 'null' vote allows people to express their choice more accurately

While I accept the view that there may be a 'mandate' for change, a straight choice does not provide a view how strong the vote for either proposal actually is. Adding the 'null' vote allows people to express their choice more accurately

Simply stating that there is an acceptance for a mandate for change is enough to warrant the two examples without the 'null' vote. Too often things take too long due to procrastination. Do away with the fence sitting and let's get change underway.

Well those in the minority always want a bigger voice than what is warranted to them. They are usually the loudest as well

At this point, I think a "no change" option should be provided.

There will be a "no change" option for the final round.

It would be sad that after 3 (or more) polls dedicated to changing the Warhound critical (purely due to player feedback), that "no change" could be a final decision.