Angel ,'Conviction (1)'
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 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.
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?
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.
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.
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?
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.
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."
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.
Sorry, I grasp Dana's question now.
I had not anticipated multiple question ballots after we get the proceedings set up. But it's conceivable, and then I'd say the only fair way is on a question by question basis.
A few quick points.
I will post an explaination of binary walk in natter , then link to it here. Since it is not under consideration, I won't be in a hurry.
On abstentions: abstentions should count towards a mvt, because "no" counts towards minimum voter turnout. Otherwise it could happen that if I vote "no" on an issue it passes, but if I vote "present" it fails.
I favor a high number of seconds and a low minimum voter turnout. That is why I suggest 15. I honestly think you will be able to get 15 seconds for anything worth voting on. But also think around 25 is a high enough voter turnout to pass something. I mean if fifteen people want to discuss something, and another ten show up, and there is proper notification and all - I think non-voting is genuine indifference to the outcome, and people who don't vote will be okay with however it shows up. I think we may want to make a point of cross posting notification rather than just putting them in press when the actual voting begins, and maybe even when formal discussion begins.