Abstention Discussion

Vilnoia1

Vilnoia1

TNPer
:why: TIME OUT????
Mr. Speaker,

Pardon the Courts opinion.. and I shall take this up with the court, if I must... I think abstain is a very valid response in a vote for any piece of legislation, ruling, or election.

We have used abstains for as long as I remember in TNP and Abstain is used by governments all over the world... Voting abstention just simply means that you want to participate but choose not too for either moral or ethical issue, or do not think that you have enough information when voting to come to a final conclusion.

Therefore abstentions are totally legal! Even according to Robert Rules of Orders!

I request that you please again take this issue up with the court.
 
The issue is that the courts ruled that the RA rule 1 which deals with using abstentions purely for quorum purposes and not using them to determine a result is unconstitutional which means that I'm left with 2 options.

Counting it as a valid vote means that it must then be used for the purposes of determining a result. This means it has to be decided as either for the matter at vote or against the matter at vote. There is no way to count them without deciding this matter. Since they are not votes for the matter at vote then they would have to be counted as against the matter. Should there be 4 ayes, 2 nays, and 3 abstentions in a vote requiring a majority from among the votes cast it would fail as only 4 of the 9 votes cast were in favor. Essentially this would make the abstain vote count as a nay vote.

Not counting it as a valid vote would then exclude it from being used to determine a result. While I don't like the idea of forcing people to choose aye or nay, especially when there is a legal requirement to participate in votes, I dislike even more the idea that choosing not to vote in either direction would force it to be counted in a certain direction, which contradicts the idea behind the vote.
 
Limi:
The issue is that the courts ruled that the RA rule 1 which deals with using abstentions purely for quorum purposes and not using them to determine a result is unconstitutional which means that I'm left with 2 options.

Counting it as a valid vote means that it must then be used for the purposes of determining a result. This means it has to be decided as either for the matter at vote or against the matter at vote. There is no way to count them without deciding this matter. Since they are not votes for the matter at vote then they would have to be counted as against the matter. Should there be 4 ayes, 2 nays, and 3 abstentions in a vote requiring a majority from among the votes cast it would fail as only 4 of the 9 votes cast were in favor. Essentially this would make the abstain vote count as a nay vote.

Not counting it as a valid vote would then exclude it from being used to determine a result. While I don't like the idea of forcing people to choose aye or nay, especially when there is a legal requirement to participate in votes, I dislike even more the idea that choosing not to vote in either direction would force it to be counted in a certain direction, which contradicts the idea behind the vote.
Click to expand...
Abstentions are 'non-votes' because they are simply the equivalent of voting 'present'. Under Roberts Rules of Order, 'abstentions' or 'present but not voting' may be counted towards a quorum, but are not counted as votes.

Hence, if quorum has been attained by the number of voters present or abstaining, then the plurality is concluded by those individuals choosing to vote.

An 'abstain' or 'present' vote is simply a political tool to not offend either party in a vote or to display displeasure at the vote entirely, or to display disdain for one's own party's stance on a vote.

In all parliamentary procedures in every system, it is unanimously recognized under rules of order of any given logical system that if quorum is reached (which included abstentions and present votes) and there are 97 abstentions and present votes, and only three people actually vote, two for and two against, then the plurality is 2 to 1.

In terms of logic, if a quorum of voting members has been reached, those who essentially choose not to vote have removed themselves from the decision making and have no reason to complain if the vote doesn't go their way.

This is the way all parliamentary systems operate unless there are specific and detailed provisions to the contrary.

The other solution, which would be a complete failure, IMHO, is to hold a role call before the vote, and then vote. The role call is the quorum, and if you don't answer the initial role call, you cannot vote, and you are not part of that vote. And, if a majority of those responding to the role call refuse to vote or abstain, then the issue is defunct.
 
Just to clarify, abstentions are not used in every systems across the world. It is not used in Australia for instance. Can we allow abstentions simply to express ones presence for a vote, but not counted in determining the result.
 
As I've noted in other threaded discussion in the R.A., the Court has more or less pushed up back into the erroneous system that was in use between 2006 and 2009, where abstention were used to determine the number of votes required to adopt any action in the Regional Assembly (not covered under Law 26 on Elections.)

What the Speaker outlined earlier today is not required by the Court's decision, as clarified by a post by the Chief Justice in response to queries by other members. We have been returned to a system where abstention are to be used in determining whether the requisite proportion has voted for something. It's not a no vote, but effectively acts as a negative to whatever question the Speaker has put to a vote.

It makes a mockery of common sense, which is why the Court reversed itself three years ago, and this double flip-flop doesn't make any sense in terms of procedure.

As I've also noted elsewhere, I have already moved (with at least a second, and a third) that the Speaker's decision be overturned and have asked for a vote. I've also started the drafting of clear cut corrective legislative on the language used in the Constitution on majorities, quorum, and abstentions, and whether as part of a larger package, or independently, I will push to have these changes adopted as soon as possible.
 
So we are going to vote on the speakers decision? Lots of questioning of authority directed around here lately, recall of the delegate, recall of the chief justice, perhaps a recall of the speaker next? ;) jokes....
 
So we are going to vote on the speakers decision? Lots of questioning of authority directed around here lately, recall of the delegate, recall of the chief justice, perhaps a recall of the speaker next? ;) jokes....
 
mcmasterdonia:
So we are going to vote on the speakers decision? Lots of questioning of authority directed around here lately, recall of the delegate, recall of the chief justice, perhaps a recall of the speaker next? ;) jokes....
Click to expand...
The chief justice has not actually been recalled. .. Yet.


In a sense it is a shame these posts have been split if ever there was an illustration that the flemingovian constitution is needed, this is it.
 
flemingovia:
mcmasterdonia:
So we are going to vote on the speakers decision? Lots of questioning of authority directed around here lately, recall of the delegate, recall of the chief justice, perhaps a recall of the speaker next? ;) jokes....
Click to expand...
The chief justice has not actually been recalled. .. Yet.


In a sense it is a shame these posts have been split if ever there was an illustration that the flemingovian constitution is needed, this is it.
Click to expand...
They were split from a thread where only voting relevant responses were only needed, not commentary.
 
First of all, Kudos to Grimalkin. He has undermined the credibility of the constitution more by one judgement as CJ than I have done in months of satire.

Certainly this issue of abstentions needs clearing up. A simple resolution in the RA that all RA votes shall be counted as of those present and voting, not counting abstentions towards the total of those voting, ought to suffice. All majorities shall be considered as a percentage of those voting Aye or Nay.
 
flemingovia:
First of all, Kudos to Grimalkin. He has undermined the credibility of the constitution more by one judgement as CJ than I have done in months of satire.

Certainly this issue of abstentions needs clearing up. A simple resolution in the RA that all RA votes shall be counted as of those present and voting, not counting abstentions towards the total of those voting, ought to suffice. All majorities shall be considered as a percentage of those voting Aye or Nay.
Click to expand...
That's what we did in 2009, and the Chief Justice just ruled unconstitutional. :headbang:
 
flemingovia:
yeah, but maybe it needs to be voted on every six months or so, just to remind justices.
Click to expand...
You can't just keep passing a law and hope that makes its constitutional.. only an ammendment will change its constitutional validity.
 
mcmasterdonia:
flemingovia:
yeah, but maybe it needs to be voted on every six months or so, just to remind justices.
Click to expand...
You can't just keep passing a law and hope that makes its constitutional.. only an ammendment will change its constitutional validity.
Click to expand...
Amendment already drafted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top