Counting Abstains

[mr_sniffles]

Currently I count abstentions, I cannot recall any vote in which I have not counted them and if I didn't, I was wrong because they should be counted. However I haven't been able to find any where they have not been counted and given the merry go round of confusion among certain RA members, perhaps we should write this into a rule.

RA Procedure
1) Abstains must be counted into the formal tally.

 

[HEM]

I agree with this change

 

[Outer Kharkistania]

Best to make sure, because this is the sort of thing that people can miss, so I'll vote for it.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

I agree that a rule needs to be established, but I believe it should be the Wikipedia rule, that absentions count only to establish the participation of a quorum, and other cannot ne counted to affect the outcome of any vote in the Regional Assembly.

The Court decision you should be looking for was sometime between April and August of 2006. It was rendered during a period when I had very limited internet access.

 

[mr_sniffles]

This proposed change in assembly procedure is only to codify what is already present. There seems to be some confusion and while I am personally ambivalent about it, I am only putting this up because of the strong arguments made in another thread.

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

What I saw in that other discussion was not that there was confusion about the current practice, but that the current practice is objectionable and needs to be changed.

The Wikipedia description on the treatment of absentions as quoted by Sydia is an appropriate and reasonable alternative, and should be given equal weight in consideration if a rule is to be adopted.

 

[HEM]

I agree with Grosseschnauzer, they should never effect the outcome of the vote.

 

[FALCONKATS]

i agree also

 

[Grosseschnauzer]

Here is the link to the Court's decision that led to the current practice on absentions. It's buried deep within the Court's archive subfoirum, and you have to re-set the search parameter to "from the beginning, but here's the link: (click on this link)

Majority/50% rule
      I interpretated, it seems completely wrongly, that the majority simply meant 50%. Just to make it clear... Majority means >50% of the cast votes. Does this count abstain or no? Since Heft and I said they wouldn't count.... can they lead to a runoff?

Abstentions, while not counted for victory totals, do constitute votes. As such, a majority is defined as more than half of all ballots cast, rather than half of all ballots cast for a candidate. So yes - if 90 votes are cast, and the totals are 44-43-3, a runoff would be required, as it would be difficult for either candidate to successfully demonstrate a mandate.

(bolded emphasis mine.) Although stated in the context of elections, this appears to be the origin of the current treatment of absentions in RA votes, although it wasn't part of the issue at the time of the linked Court decision.

Exactly how and when it started to be applied to the RA isn't clear to me, but this was the Court decision cited to me in the fall of 2006 for the change in RA procedure.

 

[Sydia]

Here is the link to the Court's decision that led to the current practice on absentions. It's buried deep within the Court's archive subfoirum, and you have to re-set the search parameter to "from the beginning, but here's the link: (click on this link)

Majority/50% rule
      I interpretated, it seems completely wrongly, that the majority simply meant 50%. Just to make it clear... Majority means >50% of the cast votes. Does this count abstain or no? Since Heft and I said they wouldn't count.... can they lead to a runoff?

Abstentions, while not counted for victory totals, do constitute votes. As such, a majority is defined as more than half of all ballots cast, rather than half of all ballots cast for a candidate. So yes - if 90 votes are cast, and the totals are 44-43-3, a runoff would be required, as it would be difficult for either candidate to successfully demonstrate a mandate.

(bolded emphasis mine.) Although stated in the context of elections, this appears to be the origin of the current treatment of absentions in RA votes, although it wasn't part of the issue at the time of the linked Court decision.

Exactly how and when it started to be applied to the RA isn't clear to me, but this was the Court decision cited to me in the fall of 2006 for the change in RA procedure.

Exactly; Star Paladin Byard has the right idea here. This is how abstaining votes should be implemented in RA votes also, in my opinion.