I think it should be question by question.
Ouhh! Snacks! The secret to any successful migration! Who's up for some tasty fried meat products!?
Anya ,'Touched'
Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier
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
Cindy - Mar 13, 2003 2:20:53 pm PST #7472 of 10001
Nobody
John H - Mar 13, 2003 2:22:53 pm PST #7473 of 10001
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
I agree with this.
does MVT apply to an entire ballot, or is it judged on a question-by-question basis?
Aren't we assuming that we won't have multiple-question ballots much in the future, that it's just this initial-setup stuff that needs them?
Surely in the future it's going to be one issue at a time -- Separate Dawn Thread, Yes or No?
Jesse - Mar 13, 2003 2:23:13 pm PST #7474 of 10001
Sometimes I trip on how happy we could be.
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
OK, although I'm starting to think this counting abstentions thing is silly.
I think it should be question by question.
Right on.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 13, 2003 2:23:50 pm PST #7475 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
The reason I think the whole ballot is:
If we have yes no abstain on each question, is someone going to leave one of the questions blank instead of abstaining? Can they do that on the form?
Dana - Mar 13, 2003 2:24:03 pm PST #7476 of 10001
I'm terrifically busy with my ennui.
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
This is where I'm at too. Because I can easily see me not caring one way or the other about a particular question on a ballot, but answering the other three.
Sophia Brooks - Mar 13, 2003 2:25:27 pm PST #7477 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
OK, although I'm starting to think this counting abstentions thing is silly.
I do to (which is why I am voting no on that question). The only reason I can see for us to use an abstention is for multiple vote ballots where you might want to skip a question.
bicyclops - Mar 13, 2003 2:28:14 pm PST #7478 of 10001
Cindy, I don't understand how:
I recommend, if someone abstains, their vote is counted toward the minimum vote total, but is not included when figuring out majority.
reconciles with:
I think it should be question by question.
Cause if abstentions count toward MVT, then MVT is applied to the whole ballot, not question by question. Or did I misinterpret you?
Sophia Brooks - Mar 13, 2003 2:31:33 pm PST #7479 of 10001
Cats to become a rabbit should gather immediately now here
Cause if abstentions count toward MVT, then MVT is applied to the whole ballot, not question by question. Or did I misinterpret you?
conceivably, someone could show up and abstain all the time. I don't understand it, really, but I think maybe someone who was against voting entirely might want to do it, or if abstentions count toward MVT, someone might do it just to get people to stop talking.
Katie M - Mar 13, 2003 2:32:55 pm PST #7480 of 10001
I was charmed (albeit somewhat perplexed) by the fannish sensibility of many of the music choices -- it's like the director was trying to vid Canada. --loligo on the Olympic Opening Ceremonies
It seems fair to me that abstentions should count toward "I can see that this is something that should be decided one way or the other but I personally don't care."
John H - Mar 13, 2003 2:35:46 pm PST #7481 of 10001
I can't see a situation in which the abstentions-counting-for-MVT thing has a negative outcome.
Thinking about it logically, it means that votes are more likely to pass where there are smaller numbers of people who really care a lot.
Would a vote with a hundred votes, 6 for, 4 against, and 90 abstains, be a bad thing? It would still have a majority in the proposed situation.