Proposal: including the option to abstain on all ballots and votes

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
This is a serious proposal, in case anyone is under any illusions.

there is an inconsistency in our electoral procedure, depending on who is running the vote.

In some votes, the option to abstain has been on the voting slip. In others, it has not.

in RA proposals, we are nearly always given the option to abstain. In elections it is much more patchy.

Voting must be on the coded slip put in the opening post, so the option to "write in" abstain has not been clearly given.

I have asked why the option to abstain has not been given, but have not been answered.

Therefore I would like us to write somewhere in our laws the following:

"all ballots and votes in TNP shall provide the option to Abstain."

Or some such words. Constitutional types will know where such as rule should go.

><><><><><><><><><><><><><

Data:

Oct 13 Judicial election runoff - no option to abstain was given. McM ran the ballot.

Sep 13 Judicial election - no option to abstain was given. McM ran the ballot.

I cannot find the thread for the September general election, but I am pretty sure the option to abstain was not given.

July 13 Judicial Election - Abstain Allowed. Chasmanthe ran the ballot.

June 13 special Judicial election - abstain allowed. Jamie ran the ballot.

May 13 Vice delegate election: Option to vote "present" given. The Voting Booth ran the ballot.
 
Flemingovia:
I have asked why the option to abstain has not been given, but have not been answered.
Click to expand...

I responded within one minute of your post on the voting thread. It just slipped my mind, my bad. It also looks like I'm the only person who forgets to include it in the voting ballot :shock:
 
Lol DD and McM... Monster!

In any case I do think this proposal should move to vote, as an amendement. Then I hope they let me abstain in that one.
 
flemingovia:
I cannot find the thread for the September general election, but I am pretty sure the option to abstain was not given.
Click to expand...
It was, for reference. Myself and Zyvetskistaahn ran the election.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Flemingovia:
I have asked why the option to abstain has not been given, but have not been answered.
Click to expand...

I responded within one minute of your post on the voting thread. It just slipped my mind, my bad. It also looks like I'm the only person who forgets to include it in the voting ballot :shock:
Click to expand...
No. I asked in a much earlier ballot, not the current one. If you look at the timestamps the OP on this thread was made BEFORE I posted in the runoff voting thread.
 
I believe the option should be to present yourself as "present" personally. If you do not vote for any candidate then you are abstaining by default. "Vocalizing" an abstention can be seen as an oxymoron.
 
Article 2, Clause 7 of the Constitution states: "7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes." In the Legal Code, Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions, Clause 4 provides that "4. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes."

These provisions do not prevent the casting of an absention in an election, merely that it cannot be used to determine the result of any vote. Since the view is that all elections technically take place in the Regional Assembly, but are conducted independently (to avoid conflict of interests on the part of incumbent officials including the Speaker.)

I don't see the need for any new legislation, just following what is already there. I know there's been a problem with one certain member who had adopted the username "Abstain," but I would think that the use of another appropriate word would past muster.
 
flemingovia:
mcmasterdonia:
Flemingovia:
I have asked why the option to abstain has not been given, but have not been answered.
Click to expand...

I responded within one minute of your post on the voting thread. It just slipped my mind, my bad. It also looks like I'm the only person who forgets to include it in the voting ballot :shock:
Click to expand...
No. I asked in a much earlier ballot, not the current one. If you look at the timestamps the OP on this thread was made BEFORE I posted in the runoff voting thread.
Click to expand...
ah, my apologies then.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Article 2, Clause 7 of the Constitution states: "7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes." In the Legal Code, Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions, Clause 4 provides that "4. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes."

These provisions do not prevent the casting of an absention in an election, merely that it cannot be used to determine the result of any vote. Since the view is that all elections technically take place in the Regional Assembly, but are conducted independently (to avoid conflict of interests on the part of incumbent officials including the Speaker.)

I don't see the need for any new legislation, just following what is already there. I know there's been a problem with one certain member who had adopted the username "Abstain," but I would think that the use of another appropriate word would past muster.
Click to expand...
The masses are on their way to determining that the law can be ignored by the Court at whim so citing Article and Clause is moot since any contentious election brought before the Court can be determined based on personal opinion and politics without regard to the Constitution or Legal Code.
 
SillyString:
mcmasterdonia:
It also looks like I'm the only person who forgets to include it in the voting ballot :shock:
Click to expand...
I did it too, in the judicial special election. :fish:
Click to expand...
Ah yes, that was the election when I queried the absence of the option to abstain.


The appearance of "abstain" (or some such) on the ballot is important, because under our rules, failure to vote can get you ejected from the regional assembly.

Voting is, therefore, compulsory. Now sometimes I do not want imply approval of any candidate, so I need a "abstain" option.

Grosse is correct - the law implies that we will be given the right to abstain. But recent omissions show that this is largely down to the person running the election and I would point out that, at the moment, we do not technically have the RIGHT to abstain.

This proposal gives us that right.
 
Gracius Maximus:
Grosseschnauzer:
Article 2, Clause 7 of the Constitution states: "7. Abstentions cast in the Regional Assembly will not be used to determine the result of any vote, but may be used for quorum and all other purposes." In the Legal Code, Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions, Clause 4 provides that "4. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes."

These provisions do not prevent the casting of an absention in an election, merely that it cannot be used to determine the result of any vote. Since the view is that all elections technically take place in the Regional Assembly, but are conducted independently (to avoid conflict of interests on the part of incumbent officials including the Speaker.)

I don't see the need for any new legislation, just following what is already there. I know there's been a problem with one certain member who had adopted the username "Abstain," but I would think that the use of another appropriate word would past muster.
Click to expand...
The masses are on their way to determining that the law can be ignored by the Court at whim so citing Article and Clause is moot since any contentious election brought before the Court can be determined based on personal opinion and politics without regard to the Constitution or Legal Code.
Click to expand...
The man raises a valid point. Might as well toss in the towel and call it quits once the people actually start running things here.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I believe the option should be to present yourself as "present" personally. If you do not vote for any candidate then you are abstaining by default. "Vocalizing" an abstention can be seen as an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
:agree: Voting "present" is currently used in many legislative branches of government. Strictly speaking, "voting" to abstain doesn't make much sense.
 
flemingovia:
The appearance of "abstain" (or some such) on the ballot is important, because under our rules, failure to vote can get you ejected from the regional assembly.

Voting is, therefore, compulsory. Now sometimes I do not want imply approval of any candidate, so I need a "abstain" option.
Click to expand...
No it's not. The rules for voting apply to legislative votes, not elections or non-legislative votes.
 
Gracius Maximus:
I believe the option should be to present yourself as "present" personally. If you do not vote for any candidate then you are abstaining by default. "Vocalizing" an abstention can be seen as an oxymoron.
Click to expand...
I request that the submitter consider this point and adjust his proposal to state "Present" instead of "Abstain".

Also, I agree with Flemingovia. The option to vote (present) without indicating preference for all votes should be automatic. Omitting run-off elections makes no logical sense.
 
flemingovia:
Why not run offs? I fail to see the logic.
Click to expand...
IMHO runoffs should result in a clear winner. Too much people abstaining in a runoff may be understood as a lack of legitimacy or representation, and that may affect office/region stability. Especially for a Delegate.

It's not that I'm totally convinced, though. Just a thought.
 
flemingovia:
Why not run offs? I fail to see the logic.
Click to expand...
I just think we need everyone's opinion in a run off as it will ultimately be the final decision. Also I don't know why anyone will need to abstain in a run off between two people, you will obviously prefer one over the other for whatever reason.
 
Unless you don't prefer one...

Lennart, if there's a lack of strong support for one candidate, that should be able to be expressed by refraining from voting one way or the other. A large number of abstentions would signal to the winner that their mandate is tenuous at best, and that they ought to tread carefully or risk losing what confidence the voters do have in them.

I can support GM's preference for "Present" over "Abstain" - though it doesn't solve the question of what to vote when someone makes their forum name "Present" and runs in an election.

For what it's worth, when I was running the AG special election, I counted the one abstention as a valid vote despite not listing it as an option on the original ballot.
 
I agree that abstain should always be an option, but I also think that this handled by common sense, people do abstain, and it's counted as abstain, even if the option is not stated. I think it's right that the abstain option be made explicit.
 
I agree that abstain should always be an option, but I also think that this handled by common sense, people do abstain, and it's counted as abstain, even if the option is not stated. I think it's right that the abstain option be made explicit.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top