Amendment: Integration of Minister of Economy

[Timeline]

Great! The first issue for the court to hammer out!

Imo abstain votes should not effect the outcome. They are not counted as votes, even though our automatic system DOES count them as votes and adds them into the percentage.

They don't count. If people wanted their vote to count for something they should've picked one of the option I say.

I hereby ask our new court to look into this matter.

[Epistax]

uhg

[Timeline]

To prove my point, here is an extreme example of how counting abstain votes could hurt polls.

In this example, the winning option requires a "simple majority" to win:

Yes: 4
No: 2
Abstain: 3
9 Votes total

Now, who won here? Looks like option Yes did, correct? Not if you count the abstains!

Here are the numbers our polling system would give:

Yes: 4 (44%)
No: 2 (22%)
Abstain: 3 (33%)

According to this, option Yes did *not* get a majority (50% or more).

We, however, are intelligent humans, and are capable of obtaining accurate results . The polling system is not set up to register "abstain" options, it just assumes you won't vote if you want to abstain!

[mtgillespie]

At the moment, either abstain votes will count either as a no, or will not affect the vote at all (I believe there will be debate on this, as it is not sepcified one way or the other). In either case, what are they there for?

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and wonder if we should have an amendment, whereby a certain percentage of abstain votes allows/requires a re-poll, with a modified proposal, but no three week waiting period is required. This allows for ammendments which are correct in theory but badly worded, or have a small part which needs to be removed, without having to wait before being changed. It also means that and abstain vote has a significant effect, without being a yes or no, and can be used if people feel a poll has been posted without sufficient debate.

[Spiffor]

I support the amendment, but I think it didn't pass. Indeed, the choice is to change the constitution, or to favor the status quo. Abstain votes are obviously in favor of the status quo, so they should count as no.

[Timeline]

Abstain votes are generally a replacement for not voting at all.

They are there so that click happy freaks (), who dont want to change the outcome of the vote, don't have to. Also, abstains encourage ALL citizens to vote, even ones who do not want to effect a decision, maybe because they feel they are to ignorant, or they don't care.

Abstains are neutral votes, exactly in the middle, and cancel each other out. They are not, nor have ever been, used to change the outcome in any vote I have ever seen.

Edit: Think about it, if I had not put in an abstain vote, those two would not have voted. What would the outcome be then?

The same applies here.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by Spiffor
I support the amendment, but I think it didn't pass. Indeed, the choice is to change the constitution, or to favor the status quo. Abstain votes are obviously in favor of the status quo, so they should count as no.

They are distinct from a no, and should not count. People who want to vote no have that option. However, i feel at the moment they are a waste of time, but could be made to be useful.

[Ninot]

i see no reason WHY you put abstain as an option if you are going to disregard the abstains in any case.

[Timeline]

I just stated "WHY" they were placed in the poll.

I am not disregarding them. Anyone who thinks they should effect the outcome of a poll is disregarding their purpose.

[mtgillespie]

Because people complain if you don't. By the same logic, why would you vote "abstain" if you really meant no? Therefore you can't count them as a no.

Edit: this was in response to Ninot

[GodKing]

OK - I abstained. Just switch my vote to yes and let this one pass. Then we can have the court relook into this.

If I remember Robert's Rules of Order correctly, an abstain is a method for a person to vote, without effecting the outcome either way. This is usually necessary when a plurality (a sertain minimum number of votes) is necessary for the proposal to be passed.

With that being the case, Timeline is correct. Abstians should not count toward the percentages of an amendment passing. Of course, with only 29 people voting either way, perhaps we should have an ammendment stating that we need a minimum number of votes.....

[Timeline]

Originally posted by GodKing
OK - I abstained. Just switch my vote to yes and let this one pass. Then we can have the court relook into this.

I wish you could, but I don't think it would go over well since the poll is closed.


*Crosses Fingers*

Hopefully our panel of judges will display an uncommon amount of common sense in this issue.

[Timeline]

I would also like to point out that this amendment was already passed once here, and that the results were never declared invalid by myself or any other official.

This re-poll is out of respect for one individual, who felt the last poll was to confusing.

[Kramerman]

I've been out of the loop on this one too. Good luck fellas...

[Epistax]

Earlier I was in a mindstate, where I could honestly say that abstaining counted as a no, but it was needed equally as much as yea or nay. After reading this over, I can't figure out how to get back into that mindstate to explain my position.

This is a tough one, it's easy to see the side that says abstaining means nothing. I think this has to do with the fact that our main voting body is flexible. Thinking about the court on the otherhand, there are vote voters, so abstaining means something. With the flexible voters, the more people that happen to say they don't care, lowers the yea's.

I think I've convinced myself against me.


--- I suggest repolling with yes/no only, and explain the reasoning (without suggesting how to vote) in the first post.