interesting aside

SillyString:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree that it would lead to defaulting or increased defaulting than what may exist today.

I think it would spur the opposite. Let's test the theory, for those who abstain frequently, in a world way you would be required to vote Aye or Nay, what would you do? Would you default to one or the other or would you do something else?

I would propose a bill to allow abstentions?

hehehe. For the sake of argument can we assume that is not an option.

REVOLT!!

punk d:

SillyString:

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.

Click to expand...

I disagree that it would lead to defaulting or increased defaulting than what may exist today.

I think it would spur the opposite. Let's test the theory, for those who abstain frequently, in a world way you would be required to vote Aye or Nay, what would you do? Would you default to one or the other or would you do something else?

Click to expand...

I have to agree with Asta. Another possibility is that it will reinforce a behavior similar to the lemming effect we see in the WA: people will just vote the way the majority up to that point does.

Your survey here will not be very helpful, I expect. Assuming that it is the currently active participants that respond, they are hardly representative of the group you are trying to sample .

Why is it so hard to get folks on record for their thought process in a hypothetical situation?

Is this forum made up of that many left-brainers who can't think outside the box? The parameters are clear...what do you think you do in a world where abstentions don't exist?

If we did not allow for abstentions if would be the start of a slippery slope that would end up with the purging of all raiders from the region. You mark my words.

punk D:

Why is it so hard to get folks on record for their thought process in a hypothetical situation?

Click to expand...

They're abstaining.

punk D:

Is this forum made up of that many left-brainers who can't think outside the box?

Click to expand...

I don't feel obligated to explain my reasons for voting the way I do. No one's business.

However, hypothetically speaking, there could be any number of reasons for abstaining:

1. I think the intimidation factor would only really apply to those who are a part of a voting 'bloc', or are new to the RA. A person may feel uncomfortable with a particular issue, but doesn't want to rock the boat. So abstain is an option.

2. People don't care about the issue.

3. Keeping RA status alive.

4. Lack of formal debate. Some people want to rush their legislation through.

Granted, I've just restated most of the reasons offered thus far, but the point is that it's hard to determine why people abstain. Recent votes do show a large number of abstainers though. Perfectly fine, but one wonders...

I would not favor removing the abstain option. If I was forced to choose 'aye' or 'nay', I would be inclined to vote nay on an issue I might have abstained on (for whatever reason). I think a better option would be to re-examine the quorum rules.

In a world without abstentions, I would avoid voting on proposals that I would usually abstain on. Occasionally, this would result in losing my RA membership, and when that happened, I would reapply.

flemingovia:

"I wonder why it is that so many people abstain these days, some abstaining in almost every vote?"

Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, it would fall under the heading of a lot which is slightly more than quite a few but somewhat less that a heap.

But that would be an interesting statistic to determine. I'll bet it's nearly 40% with 90% of that from the same people.

Romanoffia:

flemingovia:

"I wonder why it is that so many people abstain these days, some abstaining in almost every vote?"

Click to expand...

Statistically speaking, it would fall under the heading of a lot which is slightly more than quite a few but somewhat less that a heap.

But that would be an interesting statistic to determine. I'll bet it's nearly 40% with 90% of that from the same people.

Click to expand...

It isn't.

Edit:

falapatorius:

I think a better option would be to re-examine the quorum rules.

Click to expand...

I noticed this misunderstanding a few days ago, but didn't want to bump a thread that had gone silent just to correct it.

Quroum is set at 1/3 of the RA for all votes, except elections which have no quorum. It's not 50/67/75% for the different kinds of legislation. I think that's a perfectly reasonable setting.