user78: Link (via reddit)
Currently the vast majority of miners just don't vote. Was there a mistake made in organizing the voting process (maybe most miners haven't heard about this vote?), or perhaps most miners really don't like either proposals?

user563: As mentioned in BIP0016, this proposal will cause a dangerous-to-the-network blockchain split in the following case:

"A pay-to-script-hash transaction that is invalid for new clients/miners but valid for old clients/miners."

Therefore, at least 51% of the miners (and probably more to be really safe) must confirm that they are aware of this problem and promise to upgrade their software very quickly after any new client is released that implements the proposal (again, if the proposal is accepted).
In this context, abstaining technically ought to be interpreted as "I vote NO to p2sh but I may change my vote to yes later" since p2sh is only safe once 51% of the miners have indicated their agreement with it.  Simply failing to indicate disagreement has to -- at least temporarily -- count as a "no" vote in order for this election to achieve the intended purpose.
The voting technically won't begin for another day, but I think the low turnout so far is certainly telling.  It's not like there's any penalty for a pool starting its votes early, and since changes like this require testing there is a risk to waiting until the very last minute to start encoding votes.

user-1: Here is my personal opinion as to why:
1) There are no release binaries available for the new client, so it must be compiled from source. Some of the smaller pools and P2Pool users may not have the technical knowledge how to do this.
2) If you are running a modified client merging the changes from the latest P2SH code is not straight forward. Nobody wants to spend time upgrading when the changes might have to be reverted if the vote doesn't get past. 
3) Downtime during the upgrade process is bad for business, particularly for large pools.
4) No votes ultimately count as votes against, as you say perhaps they don't like either proposals enough to care.
5) Voting hasn't officially started yet - It is based on the last 1000 blocks so should begin sometime on the 24th Jan.

78: <p><a href="http://blockchain.info/p2sh" rel="nofollow">Link</a> (via <a href="http://www.reddit.com/r/Bitcoin/comments/ordvk/p2sh_voting_starts_soon_miners_be_sure_to_know/" rel="nofollow">reddit</a>)</p>

<p>Currently the <em>vast</em> majority of miners just don't vote. Was there a mistake made in organizing the voting process (maybe most miners haven't heard about this vote?), or perhaps most miners really don't like either proposals?</p>
 563: <p>As <a href="https://en.bitcoin.it/wiki/BIP_0016" rel="nofollow">mentioned in BIP0016</a>, this proposal will cause a dangerous-to-the-network blockchain split in the following case:</p>

<ul>
<li>"A pay-to-script-hash transaction that is invalid for new clients/miners but valid for old clients/miners."</li>
</ul>

<p>Therefore, at least 51% of the miners (and probably more to be really safe) must confirm that they are aware of this problem and promise to upgrade their software very quickly after any new client is released that implements the proposal (again, if the proposal is accepted).</p>

<p>In this context, <strong>abstaining technically ought to be interpreted as "I vote NO to p2sh but I may change my vote to yes later"</strong> since p2sh is only safe once 51% of the miners have indicated their agreement with it.  Simply failing to indicate disagreement has to -- at least temporarily -- count as a "no" vote in order for this election to achieve the intended purpose.</p>

<p>The voting technically won't begin for another day, but I think the low turnout so far is certainly telling.  It's not like there's any penalty for a pool starting its votes early, and since changes like this require testing there <strong><em>is</em></strong> a risk to waiting until the very last minute to start encoding votes.</p>
 -1: <p>Here is my personal opinion as to why:</p>

<p>1) There are no release binaries available for the new client, so it must be compiled from source. Some of the smaller pools and P2Pool users may not have the technical knowledge how to do this.</p>

<p>2) If you are running a modified client merging the changes from the latest P2SH code is not straight forward. Nobody wants to spend time upgrading when the changes might have to be reverted if the vote doesn't get past. </p>

<p>3) Downtime during the upgrade process is bad for business, particularly for large pools.</p>

<p>4) No votes ultimately count as votes against, as you say perhaps they don't like either proposals enough to care.</p>

<p>5) Voting hasn't officially started yet - It is based on the last 1000 blocks so should begin sometime on the 24th Jan.</p>
