But why not just vote then? I can't see caring enough to see that something has an effect, but not caring enough to vote one way or another.

Why I voted "abstain" on one of the first round's questions: A choice about how long to allow discussion had to be made, given that we were going to limit that time. I really, really didn't care less what it was. (Well, if someone had said "fifty days!" I would have, but that wasn't so.) So I abstained, because I didn't have an opinion.

When it comes to a ballot with just one issue... let me think. Okay, let's say that for some reason an issue that has to do with Bitches comes up for a vote. (Not that I think this is likely, just doing a thought experiment.) I don't read Bitches. I couldn't care less about this issue. But if it matters to the Bitches that this issue is decided one way or another, I'd be happy to vote an abstention in order to help them get that decided.

Of course, I also vote in elections when there's only one option. I have strong feelings about the moral obligation to vote, even if the vote is "eh, I really don't care." I also prefer a scenario in which change is slowed by people actively saying "no, I don't want that" to one in which there has to be a majority groundswell for change before it happens, but that's a personal preference, not something I can use as an argument. (I'll vote for abstentions counting toward the MVT, personally, but again - not caring all that much.)

Does that make any sense, Burrell?

Thanks Liese. I've marked your post and mine, and hopefully when someone needs clarification, we can point them that way.

Also thanks Jon for the fix!

Thanks Leise. I've marked your post and mine, and hopefully when someone needs clarification, we can point them that way.

That makes me wonder -- at the end of each discussion period, should we post and link to an annotated ballot with the main pro and con arguments summed up as impartially as possible?

Something like,

Should we have a Gimli/Wes shippers' thread?

• The "Yes" argument: Actually, I can't think of one
• The "No" argument: Ewww. Just, ewww.

I kind of hate to even suggest it, because I'm not going to do it (see how bad I am at neutrality?) and I really hate to volunteer other people, but it might be useful....

at the end of each discussion period, should we post and link to an annotated ballot with the main pro and con arguments summed up as impartially as possible?

I think that's a great idea, but it shouldn't be mandated, mainly because I hate to volunteer other people as well.

I sort of planned on doing something like that-- are Liese and mine's to un-neutral to link to?

I can't promise to always do it, but I hope to this time.

are Liese and mine's to un-neutral to link to?

Oh, not at all! I thought they were a perfect example. I meant it to come off more like "See what they did? We should do that every time!" And then I was thinking in one post, just to simplify the linkyness....

Hey, I'm not fully decided either, but I resent being told I should vote one way, even if I disagree, because those who feel that way shouldn't be "left out."

Burrell, nothing I posted in my previous post was in response to your discussion with Jon. I was merely responding to your post that quoted me that you started with "Wow".

---------

Liese S. "Bureaucracy 1: Like Kafka, Only Funnier" Mar 14, 2003 3:45:34 pm EST

Liese: I'm confused by your points under item 4. "a" says you think only one second is needed, but then in "b" you chose 9 as the number of seconds, which seems in conflict with what you just said in 4a. I just had chocolate, so my brain might be mush.

Cindy-- Liese was just taking the opposite view of me on a few things we agreed upon. I think if we edit into one post, we may have covered everything.

Cindy, it does conflict, deliberately. I was trying to counter all of Sophia's points so the issues were presented fairly. (Sophia chose yes, and 1, respectively, so that meant to present counterpoints I needed to chose no, and a high number.) I tried to note where my actual views diverged from the points given. Sorry for the confusion.

Although I had a perfectly good reason to contradict myself there, I do not promise to have perferctly good reasons if I contradict myself elsewhere. Heh.

Anyway to be completely fair, I should have included also a low number for the minimum voter turnout number. Sophia's was middle ground, and mine was fairly high.

The argument for a low minimum voter turnout, as I understand it, is that if people have no opinion on an issue, the vote should be able to be decided by the few people that do feel strongly. Since the voting mechanism provides a way for people who oppose an issue to do so, there is no reason for a vote to be blocked just because of low interest. People who oppposed minimum voter turnout altogether might vote this way, or people who believe that there should be few impediments to changing the boards.

[Please note that this is not my personal view, and therefore may be phrased in a biased manner. I'm trying, though! Just posting it as an addendum to Sophia's and my posts, in the interests of balance.]