pre poll discussion: should abstain option be required in official polls

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by notyoueither
I would say that 'abstains' should be consistent in their meaning regardless of the poll. The game needs simplicity, not further controversy.

Do we allow poll makers to redefine 'yes' and 'no' with each poll? Allowing 'abstain' to mean different things in each poll would allow for some tricky issues to reach the court and compel the court to interpret what some given group of citizens wanted. One interpretation too many if you ask me.

For amendment polls, I would be in favour of saying that 'yes' must outnumber 'no' by 67% to 33% of that sub total AND that 'yes' must outnumber BOTH 'no' and 'abstain' by at least 1 vote.

I posted a thread about this whole issue a little while ago. in it, i suggested that abstain should be used to force a re-poll, in cases where the idea is right, but there is bad wording, or just one bad clause in a whole amendment etc. I propose that abstains do not count in the totals, as NYE states here, but that a certain percentage (30%?) of abstains allows an immediate re-poll after re-writing, rather than waiting 3 weeks.

If people have no particular feelings either way on an issue, they show that by NOT voting. They don't need an abstain option. I also don't think this is a good way to keep track of voter numbers. A weighted average of the monthly elections should be sufficient. I can't believe there are many people who will vote on an amendment to the constitution but NOT vote for a minister or ministers!

Togas : Next to the "vote" button under the poll, it says "click here to view results". You don't need to vote to see how things are going.

Kloreep : Recently, there have been several examples where it has been shown that the pre-poll discussion was missed, or it missed a flaw in the amendment, and it had to be re-done. the recent one about notice for turnchats and a couple of Trip's amendments, for example. It should happen less, but it still will. This will allow us a get out clause.

For other threads, then... let 'yes' outnumber 'no'. Flat. Abstain with a stated reason in the thread still has it's effect. You are a citizen. You had your say. Everyone who was interested was exposed to your view.

I don't agree with this, however. Other polls should have abstain with the same meaning as amendments. People will always quote results of polls. They WON'T go down the thread counting how many people stated that they abstain. We need it to be stated clearly in the results that the poll was flawed in some way. You should still state your objections in the thread, but you need it registered as well. As was said before, if you don't have a strong enough opinion either way, just don't vote.

Edit : To add apology for going on and on and on......

[MrWhereItsAt]

mtgillespie, you have the same thoughts as me.

If you have no feelings on the matter, why even bother voting, since no-one's going to look at such an option.

OTOH, the way I use abstain is as a protest function - there's something about the poll I don't like. Of course, I follow this up with a post explanation for my vote, but then I like to do that anyway. This way abstain is actually an important vote, not an "I don't care" that no-one cares about when looking at the results.

Two abstains, an "I don't care" and a protest, is too much, I think. I really don't see the need for the the former, just the latter.

[mtgillespie]

I get the impression that some people think it's important to state that they don't care . I don't understand this, but if that's something that matters to you, post that you don't care.

I feel that the abstain option could become a useful tool if we define it right. I feel at the moment it's either a source of controversy, an irrelevancy, or a toothless protest.

[Captain]

Options should be:

Yes
No
This poll is invalid (requires X% to invalidate)
Neutral (I like to click buttons; has no effect on results)

Perhaps neutral will be better than abstain. It is clear what it means.

The "This poll is invalid" section allows the protest vote. The question remaining is what percentage of "This poll is invalid" votes will render the poll invalid?

Recall that an invalidated poll is not subject to the 3 week repoll question. In fact, a new poll on the same issue as the invalidated poll is not a repoll. It is just a poll. Repolls are copies of old polls in which it is hoped that changed circumstances and opinions over time (and not rewording of the poll) will change the results.

Also note the key difference between marking invalid and no. If you want to say no and have the results count, you vote no. Every option given above is clear in meaning and mutually exclusive.

[Captain]

Kloreep, it took a few rereads but I now understand what you mean. I am in general agreement.

[Shiber]

-- EDIT --
Wrong thread.

[kring]

I agree abstain, or a similar option, needs to be available.

My take on it is that Abstain is not a yes or no vote, so wouldn't count for either in determining whether or not a poll passed.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by mtgillespie

Kloreep : Recently, there have been several examples where it has been shown that the pre-poll discussion was missed, or it missed a flaw in the amendment, and it had to be re-done. the recent one about notice for turnchats and a couple of Trip's amendments, for example. It should happen less, but it still will. This will allow us a get out clause.

This is part of my reason for the repoll option (hence the example of the turnchat notice one).



Also, I think it should be a vote for a repoll, not a vote to declare the poll invalid. Two points:

It makes more sense to combine it with the yes vote to determine majoritys. Declaring a poll invalid is an objection to the presentation of the poll; it doesn't have anything to do with the actual amendment or action being polled on. Asking for a repoll, however, simply means you think the amendment/plan is a good idea, but want it refined before accepting it.

Also, it seems to me declaring a poll invalid is the court's job, though a citizen does, of course, have to object and bring it before the court. I don't think we should allow a majority to become a psuedo-court.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by Kloreep


This is part of my reason for the repoll option (hence the example of the turnchat notice one).



Also, I think it should be a vote for a repoll, not a vote to declare the poll invalid. Two points:

It makes more sense to combine it with the yes vote to determine majoritys. Declaring a poll invalid is an objection to the presentation of the poll; it doesn't have anything to do with the actual amendment or action being polled on. Asking for a repoll, however, simply means you think the amendment/plan is a good idea, but want it refined before accepting it.

Also, it seems to me declaring a poll invalid is the court's job, though a citizen does, of course, have to object and bring it before the court. I don't think we should allow a majority to become a psuedo-court.

I think we're agreeing on most things. 3 buttons, yes, no and 1 other. The other being re-poll, whether we call it that or abstain, that is it's meaning. You're right that there shouldn't be a button for invalidate, as that is the courts job.

The area where i disagree is then adding the re-poll option to one of the yes or no totals. If the re-poll's get a certain percentage (i think 30%, but i'm open to suggestions), that is the result, and it is re-submitted with alterations. This allows for the case where there is a lack of clarity, and people are unsure whether to vote yes or no because they are not sure of the outcome. We cannot assume that we know which side a voter is leaning on unless they vote yes or no. Re-poll just has to mean undecided, for whatever reason.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by mtgillespie

I think we're agreeing on most things. 3 buttons, yes, no and 1 other. The other being re-poll, whether we call it that or abstain, that is it's meaning.

I think there should be four options: yes, no, repoll, and abstain. I think we should have abstain as an option to not affect the voting, but show you're there and reading even if you don't have an opinion. This means it will be a hassle to determine what's winning in a poll, since we'll have to take the numbers for the three options that are actually to be counted and determine the percentages ourselves, but I think it would be worth it.

Someone pointed out in another thread that the abstain option would also be useful if we decide to require quorums on votes (though that's another issue).

The area where i disagree is then adding the re-poll option to one of the yes or no totals. If the re-poll's get a certain percentage (i think 30%, but i'm open to suggestions), that is the result, and it is re-submitted with alterations. This allows for the case where there is a lack of clarity, and people are unsure whether to vote yes or no because they are not sure of the outcome. We cannot assume that we know which side a voter is leaning on unless they vote yes or no. Re-poll just has to mean undecided, for whatever reason.

I should have clarified myself in the post you quote. I don't think a repoll+yes majority that the yes doesn't have by itself should equal yes; I think it should equal a repoll. However, we do seem to disagree on what results should mean a repoll.

30% I disagree with. I think repoll should only win if neither yes or no gets the needed % of the vote (more than 50% for either one in general polls, 2/3rds for yes and more than 1/3rd for no for amendments). The reason for this is that a lot of non-amendment polls are for the game, and it can be hard enough to make a three-day poll that fits in the turnchat schedule. For amendments, 2/3rds yes means there won't be a 30% repoll vote anyway, and more than 1/3rd no means there are enough people who simply hate the idea it won't have much chance of passing.

This means if, say, Plan Spectrum - a plan, not an amendment - gets more than 50% of the vote against it, the Plan is blocked, even if, say, 35% voted for a repoll. If it instead got more than 50% yes and 35% repoll, it's a yes. In either case, we would need to move the game along and so a repoll would be useless, especially since there's a majority anyway. If, on the other hand, it was 40% yes, 40% no, and 20% repoll, it's a deadlock - there is no majority, so we would have to try to repoll it, even though there probably wouldn't be time.

If Amendment XVII: Seperation of Banana and State gets more than 1/3rd no votes, it will lose and the three weeks wait will be required in order for it to be polled again - even if repoll got more than 50%. The reason for this is if there are enough people who hate the idea, there's no reason to keep repolling, even if a fair amount of the voters (or even the majority, for an amendment) think it needs refining; after all, it's doubtful it'll pass anyway.

Edit: I used a bad example. In fact, I used one entirely counter to the system I am proposing. Corrected. I also realized one situation with amendments I was proposing could never happen (nothing could have a 66% yes vote AND a 30% repoll vote).

Edit to edit: Made the post more coherent. Let's see if I can set a record for edits.

[DAVOUT]

I like it.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I like it.

Like what? Do you mean requiring abstains, or someone's repoll idea, or both?

[DAVOUT]

The four options.

Edit : I have already asked it.

[Aggie]

My biggest concern is fairness and equality of elections. That is why I think that we shouldn't have an abstain that has different meanings. Unless the meaning is well described before hand it is not a good thing. That is why I argued that the court should either rule the abstain in votes unconstitutional or make it a requirement. This isn't the court making law it is the court INTERPRETING and CLARIFYING current law and making it fit into our ideas of fairness and justice. Now if the court doesn't rule against abstain they will be saying yes/no means yes/no/abstain and in effect saying abstain must be included in the interest of fairness, since I think there is pretty much universal belief in uniformity in elections. But they would also have to define what abstain means and for that purpose they will hopefully look at this thread and the very good ideas herein. I do like the 4 choice option currently being pushed and hope this will get adopted afterwards through an amendment.(since defining the vote like this is quite beyond the authority of the court, that would be MAKING law instead of interpreting, actually interpreting the meaning of abstain is also pushing it, but would be a requirement of a proabstain ruling so we would have to live with it).
Aggie