RA Quorum Discussion

falapatorius

falapatorius

TNPer
I feel this issue might be worth discussing, since there has been some discussion in another thread, regarding voting abstentions.

To start, I'd like to offer that quorum be calculated differently. The amount of 'aye' or 'nay' votes could be a factor in that. For example, let's look at the recent vote to amend Ch. 8 of the legal code:

Ayes= 17
Nays= 15
Abstains= 10

A total of 42 ballots cast, 32 of which are ayes and nays. 32/42= 76.19%

Since this was a legal code amendment, quorum would be 51%. That was easily reached here. Furthermore, a constitutional amendment requires 2/3 support, so 66.67% ayes and nays would be needed for quorum (met in this instance). A BOR amendment needs 3/4 support, so 75% ayes and nays are needed for quorum (again, met).

I'm sure someone will point out abstains can then be used to block legislation, but consider a possible scenario:

Hypothetical BOR vote:

5 Ayes
1 Nay
30 Abstains

Under current guidelines, quorum is reached, and the requisite 3/4 approval met. So a BOR amendment passes on 5 aye votes. Unlikely yes, but a possibility.

This is not a proposal for an amendment. It's intended for discussion. I'm just throwing this out there. Any other ideas are welcomed.
 
Though abstain is used primarily for "present" to keep your activity current. I think it should count as a "nay" for voting purposes. If you dont know enough about a topic or care enough to vote "aye" then it should be considered a nay.

So in your example 5 Aye 1 Nay 30 Abstains for votinf purposes should be considered 5 ayes 31 nays
Maybe? Maybe not? To me I consider an abstain or present vote equal to a nay. Or very least a protest vote if one does not want to out right vote nay - for example agreeing with a general premis but not liking a specific section of a proposal.
 
PaulWallLibertarian42:
Though abstain is used primarily for "present" to keep your activity current. I think it should count as a "nay" for voting purposes. If you dont know enough about a topic or care enough to vote "aye" then it should be considered a nay.
Click to expand...
I'd be inclined to disagree. If you get a voting card in the door IRL on a refurrendum and opt not to vote, the aforementioned legislation isn't penalized with an against vote by that virtue. TNP should be no different in that regard.
 
An abstention is a position on a bill, namely no position. We have fought numerous battles on this topic over the years in TNP, and after an ill-considered Court opinion that most of us diagreed with, the previous constitution and legal code were amended to make clear that abstentions were valid in elections and in voting in the RA, and that for RA purposes they could be used to determine quorum and all other purposes except the result of a vote in the R.A. (or in an election.)

If something passed or failed, or someone was elected that an R.A. member was unhappy about, and they cast an abstention, they have only themselves to blame. If they didn't vote at all, they only have themselves to blame. If we're going to have these ridiculously rigid RA activity requirements, then the current rule on abstentions is the trade-off.
 
Should we then have looser requirements then? I know Zyvet might be happy he wouldnt have to constantly be removing people as quick for inactivity.

Instead of 4 votes in 20 days.

Make it you must log into the forum at least 1 time every 30 days and cast 1 vote every 30 days (when proposals have been up for vote - obviously if theres nothing to vote on you cant vote) and possibly have a roll call thread where the speaker or a chosen deputy may randomly request RA members to post present. In lieu of having abstention votes?

Idk. This is the system I walked into when I joined TNP. Im okay with it as it. Just entertaining the discussions and points brought up. I like playing Devils advocate.
 
It's one vote every 20 days, or one vote within the last 4 legislative votes. It's not 4 votes every 20 days.

I am in full agreement with Grosseschnauzer. If a bill of rights amendment passes or fails because 90% of the votes are abstentions, then that's how it is. "Abstain" is not and should not substitute for "Nay".
 
Silly String:
If a bill of rights amendment passes or fails because 90% of the votes are abstentions, then that's how it is. "Abstain" is not and should not substitute for "Nay".
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but it shouldn't substitute for aye either. Vote invalidated, back to the start. It may result in a stalemate, but that's preferable to rule by 'minority'. Saying 'you get what you vote for' (or not in this case) may be true, but isn't very inclusive. It could very well result in further voter apathy. I guess that could be of benefit to the proposer of said legislation though. ;)
 
I don't see how it's not inclusive. Every RA member can vote, those who abstain choose not to have a say in whether the vote passes or fails.

Abstain doesn't substitute for aye right now, and there's no way to make it do so. It serves as a statement of "I decline to impact the result", and the actual aye and nay votes have the power to determine the outcome. Changing the counting so that abstentions count against a majority is substituting them for nays.

There is still absolutely no evidence that the primary function of abstain is to encourage voter apathy.
 
SS:
There is still absolutely no evidence that the primary function of abstain is to encourage voter apathy.
Click to expand...
??? I didn't say abstain encourages voter apathy. Saying: "too bad.. you abstained, legislation passes" might contribute to voter apathy. Definitely isn't inclusive.

SS:
Abstain doesn't substitute for aye right now, and there's no way to make it do so. It serves as a statement of "I decline to impact the result", and the actual aye and nay votes have the power to determine the outcome.
Click to expand...
That's what I was suggesting. Abstain carries too much weight in my opinion.
 
What if we weighted the different votes, a system where a yes vote is say +5 "points", a no vote is -5 "points", and an abstention is -2 "points", thereby allowing a no vote to be strong, an aye vote to be strong, and the somewhat lack of support that an abstention is to be accounted for as well. This would prevent the case listed in the OP of a vote with 30 abstentions, 5 aye votes and 1 nay vote from resulting in a passed bill. We'd just have to come up with a simple formula for how many "points" a proposal needs to pass based on the number of total votes.
 
Yrkidding:
This would prevent the case listed in the OP of a vote with 30 abstentions, 5 aye votes and 1 nay vote from resulting in a passed bill.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but that was a purely hypothetical scenario. But all input is good. Not sure anyone would agree to a 'weighted' system. But you never know.
 
I do not see why someone who votes yes or no should be deemed to have two and a half times the worth of someone who votes abstain.

If we count abstains, effectively, as nay votes then it will be almost impossible to get legislation passed.

I am very much with grosse and asta on this one. We have been through this many times in the past and I think the current system is the best em can hope for.
 
flem:
If we count abstains, effectively, as nay votes then it will be almost impossible to get legislation passed.
Click to expand...
I'm not advocating this at all. Read the OP. Like I said, it may result in a stalemate, but the alternative is worse. I'd like to hear the opinions of other than the usual suspects. Not trying to advance an agenda here.
 
falapatorius:
Yrkidding:
This would prevent the case listed in the OP of a vote with 30 abstentions, 5 aye votes and 1 nay vote from resulting in a passed bill.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but that was a purely hypothetical scenario. But all input is good. Not sure anyone would agree to a 'weighted' system. But you never know.
Click to expand...
I concur that probably not a lot of people would agree to a weighted system nor am I even sure I'd be altogether for that system.
Secondly, flem, look not that the vote is worth 2 and a half times more, but instead that we're finally accounting for an abstention, but as a very weak nay vote. The weights are purely pulled out of a hat in my first post but if you look at it as a weak nay vote (you could even make it weaker at -1 instead of -2 or increase the value of the Aye and Nay votes) it allows abstentions to have some account. It would change very little in the way of most legislation being passed because the abstentions are so weak, but it would account for the possibility, however remote, of those extreme scenarios taking place. To be honest I don't theoretically see the assembly losing anything by allowing adopting that system and if the opinion of the assembly changes or problems arise the weights could simply be adjusted, but on the other hand the weighted system may very well be too much "solution" for a problem that doesn't really exist.
 
Yrkidding:
Secondly, flem, look not that the vote is worth 2 and a half times more, but instead that we're finally accounting for an abstention, but as a very weak nay vote. The weights are purely pulled out of a hat in my first post but if you look at it as a weak nay vote (you could even make it weaker at -1 instead of -2 or increase the value of the Aye and Nay votes) it allows abstentions to have some account. It would change very little in the way of most legislation being passed because the abstentions are so weak, but it would account for the possibility, however remote, of those extreme scenarios taking place. To be honest I don't theoretically see the assembly losing anything by allowing adopting that system and if the opinion of the assembly changes or problems arise the weights could simply be adjusted, but on the other hand the weighted system may very well be too much "solution" for a problem that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
Was going off for the day, but saw this. Some ppl in the RA do think. :)
 
Yrkidding:
falapatorius:
Yrkidding:
This would prevent the case listed in the OP of a vote with 30 abstentions, 5 aye votes and 1 nay vote from resulting in a passed bill.
Click to expand...
I see where you're coming from, but that was a purely hypothetical scenario. But all input is good. Not sure anyone would agree to a 'weighted' system. But you never know.
Click to expand...
I concur that probably not a lot of people would agree to a weighted system nor am I even sure I'd be altogether for that system.
Secondly, flem, look not that the vote is worth 2 and a half times more, but instead that we're finally accounting for an abstention, but as a very weak nay vote. The weights are purely pulled out of a hat in my first post but if you look at it as a weak nay vote (you could even make it weaker at -1 instead of -2 or increase the value of the Aye and Nay votes) it allows abstentions to have some account. It would change very little in the way of most legislation being passed because the abstentions are so weak, but it would account for the possibility, however remote, of those extreme scenarios taking place. To be honest I don't theoretically see the assembly losing anything by allowing adopting that system and if the opinion of the assembly changes or problems arise the weights could simply be adjusted, but on the other hand the weighted system may very well be too much "solution" for a problem that doesn't really exist.
Click to expand...
All of this is just making abstentions nay votes, weak or not.

That's not what abstain votes should be. Your systems unfairly tilts the balance of power towards the nay side.
 
falapatorius:
Was going off for the day, but saw this. Some ppl in the RA do think. :)
Click to expand...
I'm new here, we'll see how long it lasts lol

Nierr, you're absolutely right. This is all something I'm just putting out there for consideration, mostly for those who think that abstentions should count in some way.
Ironically enough, I'm not really sure where I stand on this one.

EDIT: I foresaw something during my morning shower, Abstentions due to a conflict of interest should not count as a -1 in this hypothetical system. To solve that, this hypothetical system would include Aye (Positive and equal to Nay), Nay (Negative and equal to Aye), Abstain (Weak Negative), and Conflict Abstain (No weight) votes.
Unfortunately I begin a rather long LOA today, so this will likely be my last or 2nd last post in this discussion so have fun with it!
 
I still don't see how that makes any sense. Why is there a weak nay, but not a weak aye? Why don't we just move to a gradient system of Strongly Support (+3) - Moderately Support (+2) - Barely Support (+1) - Neutral (0) - Barely Oppose (-1) - Moderately Oppose (-2) - Strongly Oppose (-3)?

The answer is because a vote is a vote is a vote. The strength of someone's feeling should never, ever give them more actual voting power.

If people want to support a bill, they can support it. If they want to oppose it, they can oppose it. Abstains are not oppositions and should remain neutral.

I didn't say abstain encourages voter apathy. Saying: "too bad.. you abstained, legislation passes" might contribute to voter apathy. Definitely isn't inclusive.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I misunderstood.

I don't think it either contributes to voter apathy or fails to be inclusive. As I said, anyone in the RA can cast a vote. If they didn't want a thing to pass, they could have voted nay instead of abstain, and encouraging them to do so next time is the exact opposite of promoting voter apathy. Abstentions being true neutral votes ensures that the people who vote that way do nothing to decide the outcome other than ensure it reaches quorum, and that encourages anybody who has feelings about a matter to vote that way.

You also have only asserted that it's not inclusive, but haven't given any demonstration as to how. Everyone has the option to cast a vote, and anybody who chooses to vote abstain has chosen not to influence the bill's passage or failure. In fact, I would argue that forcing a nay weighting onto abstentions invalidates their choice and pushes them to not vote at all, which is a far sight more exclusive than counting abstains as neutrals.
 
SS:
I would argue that forcing a nay weighting onto abstentions invalidates their choice and pushes them to not vote at all
Click to expand...
Not advocating that either. If ppl want to abstain, fine. I stand by my OP, in regard to calculating quorum. I'm not looking for support on this (no plans for a proposal), just curious as to what RA members think about the subject. But if the current trend for abstaining holds, then it'll just be a few of us with anything to say (for what that's worth). :shrug:
 
flemingovia:
If we count abstains, effectively, as nay votes then it will be almost impossible to get legislation passed.
Click to expand...
You say that like it's a bad thing. :P

The government that governs least governs best. And other platitudes and dogmatic statements to that effect.

Most rational quorum systems require at least 50% +1 vote of all votes cast, including abstentions and present votes in the total, in order to pass legislation. A most logical proposition used by all rational legislative systems throughout recent history.
 
Romanoffia:
You say that like it's a bad thing. :P

The government that governs least governs best. And other platitudes and dogmatic statements to that effect.

Most rational quorum systems require at least 50% +1 vote of all votes cast, including abstentions and present votes in the total, in order to pass legislation. A most logical proposition used by all rational legislative systems throughout recent history.
Click to expand...
Your libertarian political philosophy doesn't even actually work in real life, let alone on NationStates. This is a political simulation. The entire point is to govern.

I could support raising the quorum threshold to a simple majority rather than a third of the Regional Assembly, but that has nothing to do with the effect of abstentions which is what this topic is discussing.
 
OK, let's just do away with it all and go to a dictatorship of one or two people because that is just more practical!

I mean, it's a whole lot easier if someone does all the thinking for all of us!
 
SillyString:
I still don't see how that makes any sense. Why is there a weak nay, but not a weak aye?
Click to expand...
Got internet access for a while. Just to remind, I'm not necessarily in support of a weighted system but I`m attempting to argue for the sake of a devil`s advocate and to try and address concerns with it.

Now to respond to SS, I want you not to look at the theory of having people with more power for votes (which I agree sounds a little preposterous), but instead what some people perceive to be a problem. That problem is that under current rules a thousand people could abstain from voting on certain legislation, 5 could vote aye, and 1 nay and that legislation would then be passed and the wants of 5 people would then become law for 1001 others who did not explicitly support the legislation. Let`s now look solely at the consequences of the weighted system. A appropriately weighted voting system where an abstention counts as a very weak nay would do nothing to affect most votes that go through the RA. It would, however, prevent the possibility of a very large number of abstentions and very few aye votes resulting in passed legislation, solving what some people believe to be a problem. It would not result in no legislation being passed as flem fears and again would not be a significant factor in the vast majority of legislation being put through the RA but only in the very specific circumstance of a very large number of abstentions and relatively very few aye votes that some believe is a problem. You and falapotorious believe that there is no problem that needs to be solved and I`m somewhat inclined to agree, but should the majority of the RA believe that the above circumstance is a problem, then I believe the weighted system I`ve detailed is an appropriate and reasonable compromise.
 
Except I don't think that the majority of the RA thinks there's any kind of problem. The abstention system we have now was deliberately and explicitly designed so that people who abstained didn't get weighed in.

If 30 people abstain and 5 people vote aye, I don't see that as a problem. If 1000 people abstain and 5 people vote aye, I don't see that as a problem. You can increase the number of abstains as high as you want to make the situation as implausible as it can be - I won't see it as a problem.

Also, in this scenario, if people really want to abstain but have it weight against the vote passing, they can always not vote. If enough of them do it, it won't meet quorum and will fail by default.
 
I understand that you don't see it as a problem and I noted both that and that I believe I agree with you in my last post. I also only said should the majority of the RA believe it is a problem. Whether they might or not is beyond my knowledge but you're probably right if there's so few people contributing to this thread. Just a system I think would work if the issue comes up in future at some time though as far as I'm concerned it is addressing a relatively unlikely event and is likely not worth the time of the RA until this actually becomes something close to an issue.
 
I would see that as a problem - personally speaking. But it hasn't been a problem and I don't see it as being likely to be a problem.
 
Any thoughts on the weighted system mcm? EDIT: I'd also like to hear any other feedback on the weighted system I've detailed from anyone.

Just to save time I'll detail it quickly here for anyone willing to comment on it:
Basically a system where Aye would be valued at +5, Nay would be valued at -5, Abstain valued at -1 and a Conflict Abstention valued as 0. For a resolution to pass it would have to "score" 0 or above (All these numbers can be changed and adjusted to whatever numbers make the most sense.) Effectively, this system would prevent the scenario of a huge number of abstentions and very few Aye votes resulting in passed legislation. I will note that there are differing opinions of whether or not that scenario is a problem that needs to be solved or not. I'm unsure but leaning towards it not really being a problem.
 
I have to agree with SillyString on this. No matter what the number of Abstains we have, it is a requirement. Whether people are too implicated in the bill, or do not know enough, or simply are just voting for their seat, we need it there. To have an abstain vote count as against will see legislature never passed, or too many RA members kicked out for "inactivity" should they choose not to vote. The only other system that I could see plausible here is either a yay or nay voting system without abstaining but this would force the members to choose a side. To me it would do more harm than good in the long run to have uninformed or implicated members vote one way or the other.

This is just my two cents on this issue. Thank you,
Egalotir.

EDIT: Having read the weighed system it is something I would definitely like to hear more. It seems like a good compromise between abstains counting as Nays as well as not having abstains as well. It would "fix" the problem of 1000 abstains, 5 yays, 1 nay and thus the bill becomes law for 1006 people. I am curious as to what the weight of an abstain would be. A fifth? a tenth? It is something I could get behind though.

Thanks again
 
Egalotir:
I am curious as to what the weight of an abstain would be. A fifth? a tenth? It is something I could get behind though.
Click to expand...
That's something that would have to be decided probably during the debate period if this system was ever put in front of the RA. I think both sides agree that it would be a pretty weak weight though.
 
Yrkidding:
Egalotir:
I am curious as to what the weight of an abstain would be. A fifth? a tenth? It is something I could get behind though.
Click to expand...
That's something that would have to be decided probably during the debate period if this system was ever put in front of the RA. I think both sides agree that it would be a pretty weak weight though.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it and I would like to see something like that proposed the RA
 
Egalotir:
Yrkidding:
Egalotir:
I am curious as to what the weight of an abstain would be. A fifth? a tenth? It is something I could get behind though.
Click to expand...
That's something that would have to be decided probably during the debate period if this system was ever put in front of the RA. I think both sides agree that it would be a pretty weak weight though.
Click to expand...
I'm all for it and I would like to see something like that proposed the RA
Click to expand...
Perhaps I'll work on putting something together for the RA in the coming weeks then
 
I have to agree with those saying that, even in the case where abstains vastly outnumber ayes and nays, there is no problem.

Those that cast an abstain vote do participate in the voting process. The fact that they choose to have no effect on the outcome (which as I explained here they may do for a number of valid reasons) does not make their participation any lesser compared to that of those who vote aye or nay. They have taken part and should be counted for quorum. And, given that by voting abstain they have consciously deferred choice over the bill to those who do not abstain, they should be affected by the vote outcome as determined by the ayes and nays.

I think our system with regards to the role abstains play in both quorum and final outcome considerations is working very well in its current form.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top