RA Voting Procedure

As there is no formal announced policy on this, it would be best to have one written up. With that in mind, the Speaker is allowed to lay out a set of guidelines for proposed legislation and voting, as stated by Article II, Section Two of the Constitution. A lot of this is common sense stuff but should be presented to avoid any potential issues.

1. The Assembly is led by the Speaker, whose task it is to lay out a uniform set of guidelines by which proposed legislation and other actions may be considered and voted upon.

Click to expand...

Voting Procedures:

1. Voting for all bills will last for seven days.

2. Votes of "AYE" or "FOR" will be tallied as in favor of the matter at vote.

3. Vote of "NAY" or "AGAINST" will be tallied as opposed to the matter at vote.

4. Any type of vote not listed above will be counted as an invalid vote.

5. Any vote placed after the end of the vote will be counted as an invalid vote.

6. Anyone who has voted but had their membership removed prior to the end of voting will have their vote counted as an invalid vote.

7. All invalid votes will be treated as if the vote was not placed and the member missed the vote. They shall not be used to determine the result of any voting requiring a result from among those who have cast a vote. For votes requiring a result from the entire RA, both those voting and not voting, the vote shall be counted the same way as those not voting.

8. Members are allowed to change their vote prior to the end of the voting period by making a new post in the voting thread.

9. Should anyone have submitted a leave of absence which covers any portion of the voting period and not place a vote they will be counted as absent. Submitting a leave of absence means that they have notified the office of the Speaker of their absence via PM, a post in a thread designated for absence notices by the Speaker, or a public notice in their office for elected or appointed officials.

I am 100% against this....

You can not take out abstain or present from the voting system in either elections, voting, or legislation.

I think if you are going to abstain, you might as well vote no. It should be a simple aye or nay vote. I think abstentions should only be allowed in elections.

As I stated here because Rule 1 was declared unconstitutional except in cases of election I have 2 options for how to deal with abstain votes.

I can consider them valid but as rule 1 is unconstitutional they'd have to be counted as votes for determining a majority of votes cast, essentially making it a vote of nay; or I can consider them invalid and force people to pick a side if they're going to vote. To me this was the lesser of two evils as it forces you to pick a side should you choose to vote as opposed to making a vote of abstain (which is meant to be neither for nor against) count as a vote against.

I agree, people should have to choose a side. If they don't want to have their say, they shouldn't be members of the RA in the first place.

There can be valid reasons for a member to abstain, such as when he does not agree with either side of the argument, and wants to show his presence in the quorum.

I do not believe a Speaker can prevent a member from showing his presence on a vote, if the member does not wish to vote for or against a matter. To the extent these guidelines seem to preclude such an option for members, especially given the "two vote" requirement in Law 28, I firmly disagree with the guidelines.

mcmasterdonia:

I agree, people should have to choose a side. If they don't want to have their say, they shouldn't be members of the RA in the first place.

Click to expand...

I disagree, I think people should be permitted to abstain. Recall, members cannot safely choose to not vote due to the RA's activity requirements.

Or, those vote requirements to maintain membership should be eliminated, thus allowing people to "abstain" by the very nature of not voting.

Requiring people to vote yes or no, not giving them the choice of "abstain", and threatening to remove them from the RA if they do not vote in two consecutive votes rings of a somewhat forced and frankly undemocratic nature.

As far as I know, Blue Wolf is not a current member of the Assembly.

If necessary, (and it appears to be so), I hereby appeal the ruling of the chair to disallow members from showing their presence in a vote by not voting for or against a matter under vote, and I ask for an immediate vote on the matter.

If a vote to abstain or to vote present doesn't contribute to the majority required on a matter, until we get this straightened out, then so be it. But to disallow this option and punish members as a result is just wrong. All the court ruling does is to require that abstentions be counted in determining what number is the required majority to pass a matter under vote, it does not ban the use of abstentions altogether.

Grosseschnauzer:

As far as I know, Blue Wolf is not a current member of the Assembly.

If necessary, (and it appears to be so), I hereby appeal the ruling of the chair to disallow members from showing their presence in a vote by not voting for or against a matter under vote, and I ask for an immediate vote on the matter.

If a vote to abstain or to vote present doesn't contribute to the majority required on a matter, until we get this straightened out, then so be it. But to disallow this option and punish members as a result is just wrong. All the court ruling does is to require that abstentions be counted in determining what number is the required majority to pass a matter under vote, it does not ban the use of abstentions altogether.

Click to expand...

Vilnoia1:

Grosseschnauzer:

As far as I know, Blue Wolf is not a current member of the Assembly.

If necessary, (and it appears to be so), I hereby appeal the ruling of the chair to disallow members from showing their presence in a vote by not voting for or against a matter under vote, and I ask for an immediate vote on the matter.

If a vote to abstain or to vote present doesn't contribute to the majority required on a matter, until we get this straightened out, then so be it. But to disallow this option and punish members as a result is just wrong. All the court ruling does is to require that abstentions be counted in determining what number is the required majority to pass a matter under vote, it does not ban the use of abstentions altogether.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

+2

Chief Justice Grimalkin has posted the following clarification in response to inquires (not me, I point out):

Abstentions are only defined as not counting as votes in TNP Law 26 with regards to elections and nothing else. There is no such distinction regarding abstentions with relation to everything else the Regional Assembly covers in the Constitution or TNP Law 26. Without such a distinction, the Court was forced to rule that abstentions still count against a required majority.

Click to expand...

As i read this sentence, the current Court desires that we returned to the prior practice that was overruled by the Court thrree years ago; that is one can cast an abstention, and it has to be included in the total number of votes cast, and in determining whether a sufficient plurality, majority, or supermajority exists.

it did not rule abstentions on votes other than elections unconstitutional.

But it still requires amendments to clean up the matter so as to retain the prevailing practice. So whether as part of Elu's s repackaging of the Legal Code or independently, I will push to fix the language on voting, quorum and abstentions.

Blue Wolf II:

Or, those vote requirements to maintain membership should be eliminated, thus allowing people to "abstain" by the very nature of not voting.

Requiring people to vote yes or no, not giving them the choice of "abstain", and threatening to remove them from the RA if they do not vote in two consecutive votes rings of a somewhat forced and frankly undemocratic nature.

Click to expand...

Hmm. I think I have changed my mind. I sort of agree with blue wolf, on this one. It does strike me as bring undemocratic in nature that we punish members for only missing two votes. Simply missing the vote could be a way of expressing an 'abstention'. In my view anyway.

As of yesterday, the new Section 5 of Article II of the Constitution provides the following with respect to voting procedures:

Section 5: Regional Assembly Voting

1. A quorum is the minimum number of members of the Assembly required to participate through voting on all matters except elections and procedural motions. A quorum is defined as thirty per cent of the membership of the Assembly as it stands at the time a vote is taken in the Assembly.
2. Abstentions are used to signify a member's participation in a vote, but shall not be included in determining any election or any other matter voted upon by the Regional Assembly other than to determine the participation of a quorum.
3. A simple majority vote is a vote in which a majority of those voting for or against a measure vote for it.
4. A fractional majority vote is a vote in which at least that fraction of those voting for or against a measure vote for it. Fractions which may be invoked include two-thirds, three-fifths, and three-fourths.
5. Except as otherwise adopted by the Assembly as a Law or Procedure, voting in all matters shall last for seven days.

Click to expand...