Dr. Walsh ,'Potential'
A thread to discuss naming threads, board policy, new thread suggestions, and anything else that has to do with board administration and maintenance. Guaranteed to include lively debate and polls. Natter discouraged, but not deleted.
Current Stompy Feet: ita, Jon B, DXMachina, P.M. Marcontell, Liese S., amych
I think the question is whether it counts towards the MVT (which I think it should) - I can't imagine it counting towards the majority. But why would it require a special type of vote?
Before this wanders off and starts talking and shit, the question was whether abstentions count towards MVT. According to Sophia's research on rules of order and such, that depends on our charter (or consensus or vote or whatthefuckever). Abstentions never count a majority in any of the examples she could find.
There was a post WAY earlier that was advocating
Yes No Abstain
For every ballot, and if ONE of those didn't get a majority we wouldn't do anything.
So if
yes 50% (50 people)
no 25% (25 people)
abstain (25 people)
No action would be taken.
Instead of
yes 67 % (50 people) no 33% (25 people) abstain 25 people
Where yes would win.
David! I never see you anymore!
Thanks, Sophia. Can I assume that that (very silly, IMO) notion has been dropped?
Okay. I'm trying hard to follow along.
Does MVT refer to the highest number of people that vote on a particular ballot, or will it be tracked by individual question? That's the first thing I want to know before thinking about abstentions.
David! I never see you anymore!
pops up from behind bush of constant hiding and waves furtively
How much longer is this discussion open, btw? Two more days?
Does MVT refer to the highest number of people that vote on a particular ballot, or will it be tracked by individual question? That's the first thing I want to know before thinking about abstentions.
edited because I wasn't paying enough attention to Dana's question
I think we're discussing setting the MVT for all votes. Not just a particular ballot or question.
17 is the ONE TRUE NUMBER. NILLY SHALL SHOW YOU THE WAY!!!
It's better than Jesse's 50, I'll give you that.
On abstaining -
I can understand people voting because they want the people who care, to get enough votes to count, but don't feel strongly enough to vote one way or the other.
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
So say 18 was our minimum vote total. We're voting to give me a million dollars, cash, American. 8 fucking losers vote "no". 9 beautiful people who'll be remembered in my will, vote "yes". One whacko can't make up her mind, but thinks the vote ought to count, so we don't talk about it again for X number of months, so she votes, "abstain".
We've reached our minimum vote total of 18. The vote counts. Out of those who entered an opinion, the 9 very RIGHT ones win.
I thought about adding three to that, but didn't want to get into the majority issue. And really, six is what I've seen most people advocating, so it seemed to me like something we could get decided without dragging this process on much longer.
No, we have people enter a number of seconds between 1 and 31536000 (1 year, except for leap years). And then average and round to the nearest second.
But seriously, I'd like the tabling issue to wait until after at least this ballot.
Hmm-- Dana I would think the entire ballot. Because I don't know that we are ever going to have so many questions on one ballot ever again.
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
Right. That's my thinking too.