In your place, I wouldn't just count votes based on individual actions, but on classes of actions -- that is, I'd first assign 2.5 votes for "find a peaceful solution" and 2 votes for "find an aggressive solution", then if the latter would win I'd count votes for what aggressive solution to use, that is "attempt to attack our enemy" versus "throw knife at enemy". This reflects the "middle position" better IMO.
EDIT: To illustrate this, suppose we're in a room with a door and a human; the first two posters vote for leaving the room, but then six other posters vote for talking with the man. However, each of the six votes for a different thing to say; two of them want us to be friendly, three of them want us to be hostile, and yet another one (who is the third poster) wants us to talk nonsense. With your counting system, that's 2 for leaving, 1 for talking and being friendly, 1.5 for talking and being hostile, and 1 for talking nonsense. But it's clear that the general consensus is to talk with the man, even if we may not all agree on what to say. So we count 2 for leaving and 3.5 for talking instead. Talking wins, and we count votes for the different ways of doing this; being hostile has 1.5 votes while the other two options have 1 vote, so being hostile wins.