Each Student Government election cycle, it comes up in heated debates.
Committees are formed, independent reports are commissioned, petitions are drafted and consultants are hired.
In one instance, a student body president prepared a slide show about it.
And just about every time we think we might get closer to what the majority of UF students have wanted for years, it's shot down before it even gets to the Student Senate floor.
So what is this elusive controversy that always gets SG so riled up?
Online voting.
And it's back. So, get ready to hear more of the same.
On Tuesday, the UF Supreme Court ruled that Students for Online Voting, or SOLVe, a group collecting signatures to amend the UF Student Body constitution, did not actually exceed the time needed to collect the required number of signatures.
The group now has about two more weeks to submit its petition.
SG Supervisor of Elections Sarah Krantz had "miscalculated" the number of days the group had to submit the proper paperwork and announced what she thought was the correct date.
Everyone makes mistakes.
But given the history of this issue, we're really not that surprised.
In 2005, a petition signed by more than 1,000 students in favor of placing online voting on the ballot was denied by the SG Supreme Court, which convened in a secret meeting.
And while Dean of Students Gene Zdziarski later invalidated the court's decision, citing a possible violation of Florida's open meetings laws by the court, the issue of online voting was still noticeably absent from the spring ballot.
You would think that SG would just concede the fact that the majority of students would prefer to vote in the comfort of their own homes - and in their underwear if they so choose - through the secure GatorLink system.
You would also think that they would want to implement the cost-efficient voting method as soon as possible to get more students involved in the whole electoral process.
Well, you would be wrong.
Despite all the lip service that has been devoted toward making SG more accessible to the student body at large, we can't help but suspect that there is an ulterior motive behind stopping online voting in its tracks.
And it has nothing to do with maintaining consistency with legal precedence, which was the explanation offered by Ryan Day, SG's deputy chief of staff, on Tuesday.
As it turns out, we only have to look across town to see why so many in SG are vehemently opposed to online voting and why they are doing nothing tangible to see it become a reality besides bickering over semantics.
In spring 2001, SFCC students started using the electronic method of voting. Not only have they been ahead of us for years, but their voter turnout more than doubled from 400 to 812 the first time online voting was used.
While SFCC has nowhere near the amount of students as UF, we'd venture to say that a similar success could easily take place here.
Maybe that's what those in control of SG are so afraid of.
