interesting aside

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
I have just started noticing something.

In the olden days, when the RA voted on something, most people would vote aye or nay, with very few abstentions.

For example, one vote from JAn 2008:
16 votes cast (the RA was much smaller then)
For: 9
against: 7
Abstain: 0

The only exception to this was elections, where those running would generally speaking abstain rather than voting for themselves - a practice almost gone now.


I wonder why it is that so many people abstain these days, some abstaining in almost every vote?
 
Maybe they feel they don't have enough information or are unsure on how to vote? Could also be that they agree with both sides of the argument and just cancel it out by abstaining.

On a more negative note it could just be inactive RA members who are only voting to vote and not lose their seat?
 
I think the latter is most likely.

We have long debate periods to allow people to become informed, and yet many of those who abstain do not engage in debate or ask questions. If they feel uninformed, i do not think it is the fault of the system.
 
It's definitely not the fault of the system but there should be a way to get everyone more involved. Perhaps how now we have auto telegrams for WA proposals for debate, would it hurt to post them too for RA proposals, to just those on the RA to try to get more engaging debates going.
 
As the Main Regional Assembly floor is for the introduction and debate of proposals either legislative or non legislative. While this Post is informative on the RAs voting history. It is not a bill proposal. So As Deputy Speaker I have moved this to the Citizens Lobby where I feel it is more approprate for general discussions about the RA. Thx.
 
I guess sometimes I just feel apathetic about a certain issue - I personally don't care if the NPA is named whatever the MoD wants it to be.
 
Which is what my bill does, with the added bonus of mandatory consultation with the NPA membership as a whole.
 
Which as an NPAer I voted for. It doesnt change anything about the NPA excepts adds an aside that the MoD has discretion to propose any name or rank changes. I mean people like the ARMY theme. That is fine. But say later on TNP may adopt a theme or something. This opens something up down the road where an MoD could make name changes to reflect that. It gives the Military of TNP some flexibility in making their own changes as circumstance or preference of the region changes. It does not alter anything about the NPA present day. It just gives the MoD more flexibility and the Military the power themselves to change stuff. And not be so rigid with one name or a group of Civilians (The RA) to change their name. I don't see why its a hard concept to grasp or why folks are against it. I would think the NPA would be for it as it gives the MoD more control over administrative affairs. If Tyr's Hand Party was still active this is something I'd expect them to support.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
I don't see why its a hard concept to grasp or why folks are against it. I would think the NPA would be for it as it gives the MoD more control over administrative affairs.
Click to expand...
:lol:

Welcome to the Regional Assembly.

Edit: Oh yeah, and I think it is to meet activity requirements when people don't feel strongly about a proposal.
 
How about you confine discussion about specific bills to the actual threads for those bills.

It's pretty clear that a large portion of people voting abstain are doing so because they simply want to maintain their RA status. But to be honest, I don't see a problem with that. They are staying aware enough to know that there is a vote, and if they choose not to have an opinion or do the research, then that is a choice.

I would object to trying to do away with abstain (not that I would have a vote), since we have in place a law that people must vote or lose their place in the RA.
 
I abstain when I don't care about something - not that I'm uninformed, it just doesn't matter to me if it passes or fails despite the arguments that have been made on either side.
 
SillyString:
I abstain when I don't care about something - not that I'm uninformed, it just doesn't matter to me if it passes or fails despite the arguments that have been made on either side.
Click to expand...

Same with me but sometimes it when i do not know enough or when i dont understand the bill and its consequences.
 
flemingovia:
I have just started noticing something.

In the olden days, when the RA voted on something, most people would vote aye or nay, with very few abstentions.

For example, one vote from JAn 2008:
16 votes cast (the RA was much smaller then)
For: 9
against: 7
Abstain: 0

The only exception to this was elections, where those running would generally speaking abstain rather than voting for themselves - a practice almost gone now.


I wonder why it is that so many people abstain these days, some abstaining in almost every vote?
Click to expand...
You have to ask why?! :headbang:

It's because people are afraid on the ramifications (sheep pun 'ram' intended) of actually expressing an opinion one way or another for fear of some kind of adverse result to their political well-being. That's why.

The "Abstain" choice is a not-so-clever tool to exploit fear of general denigration into a method to get bills passed with less than 50% of the total RA members at any given time.

Given the current system of RA voting we have now, two people could vote "Aye", one person could vote "No" and there could be a million "Abstain" votes and therefore two people exert their will over the rest who lacked the intestinal fortitude to vote one way or the other.

The "Abstain Choice" is nothing more than a tool to exploit the principle of qui tacet consentire videtur by exploiting the fear of castigation for taking a definitive stand on any issue. It exploits the weaker points of human nature for political gain by the most intimidating gang involved.

To be practical about it, "Abstain" votes should be treated as "Present" votes and not counted towards a quorum in order to prevent a minority from exerting its will over the majority by means of pure fear of political repercussions.

Now, if we had real guts in TNP, we would only have an up or down vote, no abstentions in any form. If less than half of the RA votes, the bill is dead.

Of course, some people say that this means very little would get passed, but that is not always a bad thing.

And, of course, a bill that gets passed with only a minority of all RA members present is a bad thing by virtue of the true principles of democracy. If people don't care enough to vote for or against in absolute terms, then what is voted for is usually a political tool, damaging or worse.

Everyone knows this but some are afraid to admit it.

We need a re-definition of Quorum to prevent stupid garbage from getting passed with less than 50%+1 results.

I say do not allow 'Abstain' votes at all. You either vote for or against. If you don't care enough to do that, then you have no business being in the RA or participating in a so-called Democracy.

It's time we grow a spine around here and make it an all or nothing proposition instead of a 'well, gee, if I vote a certain way, I'll get shunned from the herd. Let's Abstain!!"
 
So many words...

I voted however I wanted and no one ever said anything to be about it. Not one time.

I abstained when I didn't care about the matter at hand. I would have skipped the vote on such issues, if that had been a viable option.
 
Roman put it perfectly honestly. We shouldn't have an abstain vote, unless under extreme circumstances where you can't vote (sick, on leave ,travel, etc). If less got done, oh well, it last people are voting, and a minority doesn't voice/pass a bill for the entire region.
 
Saying something in Latin doesn't make it not wrong.

It is not a mistake or an accident that abstentions do not count against motions or bills. It was added to the Constitution on purpose.

Some people abstain because they don't care about the outcome one way or the other - these abstentions should not be used to prevent a bill from passing. Some people abstain because they feel they are in a position where they ought to do so (e.g. Speaker or Justice) or because they have a conflict of interest (e.g. a treaty with another region that they are also a citizen in or a recall motion targeting them) - these abstentions should not be used to prevent a bill from passing.

Sometimes people abstain because they don't want the political heat that taking a side (either side!) might bring. Given that someone abstaining for this reason might want to vote either aye or nay, again these abstentions should not be used as the functional equivalent of nay votes. Rather, we should seek to cultivate an environment where people feel free to voice disagreement and are not given reason to fear repercussions for having opinions.
 
SillyString:
Saying something in Latin doesn't make it not wrong.

It is not a mistake or an accident that abstentions do not count against motions or bills. It was added to the Constitution on purpose.

Some people abstain because they don't care about the outcome one way or the other - these abstentions should not be used to prevent a bill from passing. Some people abstain because they feel they are in a position where they ought to do so (e.g. Speaker or Justice) or because they have a conflict of interest (e.g. a treaty with another region that they are also a citizen in or a recall motion targeting them) - these abstentions should not be used to prevent a bill from passing.

Sometimes people abstain because they don't want the political heat that taking a side (either side!) might bring. Given that someone abstaining for this reason might want to vote either aye or nay, again these abstentions should not be used as the functional equivalent of nay votes. Rather, we should seek to cultivate an environment where people feel free to voice disagreement and are not given reason to fear repercussions for having opinions.
Click to expand...
Ideally, that's the way it should be.

One of standing rules is that RA members must cast votes at a regular interval so as to maintain RA status, and this actually is a good function of the abstain vote. However, it eliminates the parliamentary feature of voting "present" so as to signify one is in attendance, but one is not voting in a way that contributes to quorum.

Playing the Devil's Advocate, though, it also could be said that Democracy is not a spectator sport and those who choose to abstain, or worse yet, do not participate, get what they deserve in the long (and not so long) term. But I see where you care coming from, and your position is also a perfectly valid analysis.

A number of years ago, I suggested a method of assuring RA participation and culling out totally inactive RA members:

Periodically, like every week or two, conduct a "Roll Call" of RA members so that RA members can check in as a show that they are active (and preserve their RA status). Miss two consecutive roll calls, and you get dropped from the RA. The most recent 'roll call' determines the numbers needed to meet a quorum.

With that method, it gives RA members the choice of not voting at all instead of having to vote 'Abstain' in order to maintain activity requirements.

My objection to the current quorum method is that while abstain votes are counted towards quorum, a bill can be passed with fewer than 50% +1 of the total RA members in 'attendance' at the vote.

But either way, the current system can be exploited to pass legislation that would not likely pass if it required 50% +1 of the total votes case (including abstentions). While the current system sounds good to some people at any given time, it eventually will sound bad to them when they are on the short end of the stick on any given bill.

With a 50% +1 system of all votes case, including abstentions, you have a mandate. Under the current system, you generally do not have a mandate on any given bill.
 
I abstain when I don't care. Others have said similar.

However, I'd favor getting rid of the ability to abstain. I like forcing choices and I know in the absence of a forced choice many people will choose to abstain for reasons mentioned by those within the thread.

I see no harm to removing abstentions and perhaps it'll force people to be a bit more diligent and read through bills/discussions more closely.
 
I've changed my vote on the armed forces thing three times now. It may change again before it's done. I like that I can abstain if I can't decide one way or another though.
 
I do not support removing abstain if we don't also remove the requirement to vote. There /are/ good reasons not to vote, and, quite frankly, you shouldn't be forced to publicly say one way or the other. When I was a justice, I pretty much /always/ abstained, and when I had other conflicts, I often did as well. The difference, flem, is the requirement to vote. The people who are abstaining now simply wouldn't have voted previously. Making abstain a functional Nay vote is no good either.
 
Abbey Anumia:
I do not support removing abstain if we don't also remove the requirement to vote. There /are/ good reasons not to vote, and, quite frankly, you shouldn't be forced to publicly say one way or the other. When I was a justice, I pretty much /always/ abstained, and when I had other conflicts, I often did as well. The difference, flem, is the requirement to vote. The people who are abstaining now simply wouldn't have voted previously. Making abstain a functional Nay vote is no good either.
Click to expand...
We could also bar justices from voting.

Other than CoI's, I see no benefit to abstaining. To me, it's just laziness or indecision. Laziness should be corrected. With respect to indecision people should not be allowed to avoid making a decision simply because they don't want to, in my opinion.

We're here to legislate and if you don't wish to do that, then in my opinion you shouldn't. Shouldn't would equal relinquishing membership within the RA and doing something else. Seems to me if people don't want to make decisions then they should become "citizens" where they can continue to be part of TNP but don't have to participate within the legislative structure of TNP.
 
So long as any government official is required to be a member of the RA, it's nonsensical to prohibit them from voting. Some justices have chosen to abstain on all votes, but not all do - I for one do not.

I don't think it really matters whether people vote Abstain because of a conflict of interest, because of laziness, or because of indecision. It's their vote - they get to cast it however they want, and they get to live with the consequences of that cast.

As to forcing them out of the RA, that's an unreasonable move. The majority of people abstain on some things and not others - maybe they like legislating but don't care about who gets admitted to the security council, for example. Or maybe they'll pick a side on substantive changes but vote abstain on anything cosmetic. Those are perfectly valid choices of things to care about, and it's pretty ridiculous to tell people who do differentiate that they're doing play-acting as legislators wrong. And it's also ridiculous to force them to "make a decision", and thereby force them to influence the outcome of something that matters a lot more to other people than it does to them, than to allow them to abstain and let the vote be decided by those who do care.
 
SillyString:
So long as any government official is required to be a member of the RA, it's nonsensical to prohibit them from voting.
Click to expand...
The above quote is stating what I am saying.

I am saying, perhaps it's time to consider that the RA should only be made up of those who wish or should have a voice within the legislative body. Perhaps, dare say, it's time to consider a true segregation of powers wherein the delegate is not voting upon legislation he/she is also responsible for executing or Justices are not also voting upon legislation which they may later be called upon to interpret.

That scenario intrigues me quite a bit and could enable a different dynamic than we have today. Also in this scenario, I would argue abstaining should be outlawed.
 
Voting judges is fine, so long as people do not use this as a reason why justices need to recuse themselves from a legal review of the vote.

For example, someone might say "so-and-so justice voted in favour of this legislation. therefore they cannot be impartial when this comes to legal review. they must recuse themselves"

I think we use recusal far too much in this region, and the above is silly - but I know the way some people in this region think.
 
punk d:
SillyString:
So long as any government official is required to be a member of the RA, it's nonsensical to prohibit them from voting.
Click to expand...
The above quote is stating what I am saying.

I am saying, perhaps it's time to consider that the RA should only be made up of those who wish or should have a voice within the legislative body. Perhaps, dare say, it's time to consider a true segregation of powers wherein the delegate is not voting upon legislation he/she is also responsible for executing or Justices are not also voting upon legislation which they may later be called upon to interpret.

That scenario intrigues me quite a bit and could enable a different dynamic than we have today. Also in this scenario, I would argue abstaining should be outlawed.
Click to expand...
There's a difference between "wanting to have a voice" and "being forced to use it". Abstain is using it, regardless. It is a public declaration of non-opinion.

I want to have a voice. But there are still issues that come in front of the RA which I quite frankly don't care about. And people can still have RL things that come up which make them unwilling to vote (especially on big, important votes) due to the lack of a chance to keep up with the discussion. They won't have a LoA request approved but they may not want to express an opinion.

I just think it's a frankly stupid idea to remove this option to voters.
 
yes. I would not want to see "abstain" removed from the voting process. The right NOT to choose is also a democratic choice, and we need to resist those who would limit our freedom of choice.

the OP in this topic was simply noting that abstain was being used much more often than it used to. I think the voting requirement to maintain RA membership probably accounts for it, in the main.
 
I like thinking voters and I'd rather have 10 thinking voters than 30 voters, 10 of whom actually consider things.

That may make me meanspirited or harsh and I'll proudly wear the badge. Having this conversation has made me resolve that I will not use the abstain option any longer. Abstaining isn't an evil nor is removing the option to abstain. It's truly a cultural aspect of our laws in the sense that we've generally been able to use the abstain option.

What I argue is that we could try something completely different and remove the option in order to get folks to make a decision. I'm not sure I agree with Flem that part of the democratic process is the right not to make a decision.
 
SillyString:
I think it's a bit overly dramatic to call anybody who ever abstains "non-thinking". :mellow:
Click to expand...
I don't.

Well, actually, I don't think they are 'unthinking'. They are just seeing what side of the bread will get buttered depending upon how they vote. Abstainers do indeed think, but they think only about their political image.
 
I don't participate in the debate of proposals but I always read through them and make sure I vote based on my opinion of what is best or what is right. And sometimes abstaining is the best choice. Sometimes you can't decide between aye or nay. Sometimes you have trouble understanding the proposal. Abstaining expresses your opinion and notes your presence in the voting. Even real life legislatures have it as an option. The United States Congress offers voting present, and while barely used, is important to the process. While I do not believe abstention should be used as excessively as it has been, I do not think it is necessary to eliminate it. It can be a true representation of opinion.
 
Romanoffia:
SillyString:
I think it's a bit overly dramatic to call anybody who ever abstains "non-thinking". :mellow:
Click to expand...
I don't.

Well, actually, I don't think they are 'unthinking'. They are just seeing what side of the bread will get buttered depending upon how they vote. Abstainers do indeed think, but they think only about their political image.
Click to expand...
It may be true for some, but that is not the case for all. All-encompassing generalizations tend to be intellectually lazy. I get it's hard to interperate stuff on a case by case basis but if you're shooting for any kind of true understanding, it's a great place to start.
 
Romanoffia:
Abstainers do indeed think, but they think only about their political image.
Click to expand...

An interesting claim. Just for fun, I went through the RA's history, and there are a grand total of four members who have never voted "abstain" - Gracius Maximus, Schweizweld, Nierr, and Nasania, and I think it's entirely possible the latter two are only on that list because they haven't yet been eligible to vote on an issue that they find unimportant.

So just to be clear, are you asserting that the entire rest of the RA, including yourself, cares only and entirely about its political image?

Blackshear:
It may be true for some, but that is not the case for all. All-encompassing generalizations tend to be intellectually lazy. I get it's hard to interperate stuff on a case by case basis but if you're shooting for any kind of true understanding, it's a great place to start.
Click to expand...

I agree completely. There are all kinds of reasons to vote a particular way - it's no more inherently unthinking to always vote abstain than to always vote aye or to always vote nay. There are people who default to voting aye on issues that they don't care about, and there are those who force themselves to abstain on issues where they care deeply because they feel voting would be inappropriate. It is not our role as a government body, nor our task as individuals, to interrogate voters as to their motives for voting a particular way, or to ensure that they are not voting by the wrong thought process. All members of the RA have the freedom to be informed about any issue, and the right to vote as they see fit.

Proposing to take away the ability to say "I don't care about this, but I see that you do, so don't let me stop you" is ridiculous.
 
I think there are many, many reasons to abstain.

I used to use abstain very rarely, I would always stick to voting aye or nay.

Some of the reasons I abstain are mainly to do with feeling discouraged by Flem and others that my participation was unwanted and counter-productive, but still wanting to hang in the RA because I like being a part of it. I think it's useful that you can undergo these waves of being too intimidated to take a side on regional issues but still remain a member and take a side on something at a later date when you actually feel valued and that your opinion is shared by others.

Other reasons are simply that something is unimportant (I would have tended to vote nay on those things if I wasn't worried what people would think of me)

Also sometimes people are just indecisive or they can't find the time to analyse an issue satisfactorarily.

OOC: ran out of time to finish writing this post
 
OOC again, I am not aware of how I may have discouraged you from participation in the RA. We have not always agreed on every issue, but that does not mean i would like to see you not take part.
 
As Blackshear said, the problem with Punk's argument is that it asserts abstain votes are "unthinking", and aye or nay votes are "thinking". There is no basis to support this assertion.

Someone could be voting Nay on all votes just to be an obstructionist, or just to troll the region. Another voter could be casting an Aye vote on everything, without even bothering to read the bill. These are behaviour patterns which we have in fact seen in the RA in the past, and not implausible things I am making up. And all three of these behaviour patterns clearly fall into the category of "unthinking".

There are several valid reasons for people to vote Abstain, which are hardly unthinking. Justices, for instance, often consider that in order to avoid losing the appearance of impartiality or creating a conflict of interest, they need to abstain from supporting or opposing some motion. Members who are involved in other regions may choose to abstain from voting on some diplomatic document that relates to those regions, because they feel they cannot isolate the biases that arise from their other memberships. Other members may, at one point or another, not have enough time to fully investigate an issue or acquire the necessary background, and therefore choose to abstain and defer to those better informed members instead of making an uninformed decision. I know I have done all three on different occasions. In all these cases my Abstain vote was hardly the result of "unthinking", but instead the outcome of serious consideration, as is every single one of my Aye and Nay votes.

Now, you may counter the above by saying, why can't these members just not vote at all? There are two reasons. First, an explicit Abstain vote conveys a more powerful message than not voting at all, for example by more effectively showing the reasons, such as those I described above, why a person chooses not to vote. Especially when it comes to influential voters, such a message can have a strong impact on the outcome of a vote. Second, voting activity is a requirement for Regional Assembly membership, which in turn is a requirement for voting and standing for offices, and therefore voting Abstain as opposed to not voting at all is necessary for not being removed from the Regional Assembly.

I will be voting against any proposal to remove the right to vote abstain, and will be heavily campaigning against any such proposal.
 
A very valid point:

Especially when it comes to influential voters, such a message can have a strong impact on the outcome of a vote.
Click to expand...

And that is the root of the problem - people who are afraid to vote one way or another in order to avoid causing offence or enmity. That is when democracy takes a nose dive and ends up being a popularity contest or a herd of sheep, or both. I think a lot of people just don't care enough to vote one way or another.

The problem is that the Abstain vote is counted for quorum purposes and fewer than 50% +1 of all votes cast can get a bill passed. That means a minority in favour will almost always super-cede the majority of people who in one form or another did not vote for a bill.

Should the abstain option be eliminated, probably not, but I think the Aye votes should outnumber the aggregate of Nay and Abstain votes so that bills actually pass with a real majority and not a rump majority.

Second line of logic on this matter:

If bills were required to have 50% +1 of all votes cast (including Nay and Abstain) in the affirmative, it would require people to not only construct better bills but would also require that people lobby for support of their bill and to compromise in the construction of bills in order to get something amenable to at least 50% +1 of all RA members voting.

That change alone would require people to work together to solve common problems rather than to work against each other and ram through legislation that is supported by less than half of the RA members.
 
I may have been a bit unfair to call all abstention votes unthinking. I should probably say, 95 percent of my abstention votes are votes made simply because i don't care about the topic and don't care to read about it - otherwise known as unthinking.

I would argue that a good deal of abstention votes are taken with a similar thought process. It's not 100 percent sure, but it's well above 50.

I think that by eliminating the ability to abstain and introducing some greater separation of powers we could inject new life into the RA. I don't believe abstaining kills the RA or is some sort of 'evil', but I do think that removing it could lift the quality of voting by forcing people to make a decision and by implication, think a bit more about their vote.
 
I do not believe that that would in any way force people to think. It would rather drive them into defaulting to an aye or a nay, or simply not voting at all - patterns which, as r3n has pointed out, already exist in nature.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top