Abstentions on RON

Guy

Guy

TNPer
Currently, when casting a vote, you are given one of two choices: Either vote in favour of reopening nominations, or against doing so.

The legislation states as follows:
13. The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
14. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
Click to expand...
I believe that you would be able to simply not vote on the question of whether to RON, while voting for a candidate for the underlying office, without spoiling your ballot. However, this is not explicitly stated. Further, the current ballot does not inform voters that they would have the option of doing so. I think it's fair to allow people to have no input on this question, if so they wish, while casting their vote.

Technically, the option to abstain is not explicitly granted by the Code either. There is this clause in the Code:
3. "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.
Click to expand...
It's a definitional clause without usage anywhere else in the Code! My understanding (and I may be wrong) is that generally it's been up to the EC to decide on the electoral system, being stuff not covered by the Code?

A Bill to guarantee the right to abstain

1. Clause 3 of Chapter 4 of the Legal Code shall be amended to read as follows:
3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election, nor the question on whether to reopen nominations. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
Click to expand...

2. This bill shall commence its operation immediately upon passage, notwithstanding that it shall not affect any elections already ongoing.
Click to expand...
 
I agree with this immensely, as I only default to saying no to RON as it is a default answer in my head.
 
I'm not sure that Abstain is a different choice than No, when it comes to this question. "Majority" has been interpreted as a majority of votes cast at all, I believe, and not a majority of votes that contained that specific question - so choosing not to answer it is identical to choosing No.

I don't think I'd support changing that, either, since reopning nominations is a Big Deal and I think it would be weird to do that if only a minority were actually in favor of it.
 
I really don't see the logic to holding that RON requires a majority of all votes cast in the election, and not only those who expressed an opinion on whether to RON. It really rather limits someone who may be neutral as to the question from voting for that office - not something I'd want to see. We have a more exotic, perhaps, voting option, but we shouldn't force people to express an opinion on it. Right now, the only way to do that is to not vote at all.
 
We don't force anyone to express an opinion... or shouldn't. Have any votes been discounted because the person left off that question?
 
Well, for starters, the ballot paper doesn't indicate that it's an option to leave it off. That in itself, i believe, should be rectified.

And yes, you are: In order to vote for a candidate, one must, in effect, either vote in favour (by doing so) or against (whether explicitly, or by not casting a vote / abstaining) reopening nominations. There is no way to cast a vote for a candidate, but to not cast a vote on the RON question.
 
There is a privately submitted ballot which does not specify whether to reopen nominations for Delegate and so cannot, in my understanding, be counted.
 
Not without invalidating your vote (according to Eluvatar) or voting against (according to Asta).
 
I don't see why you can't vote abstain on RON anyway, other than it conflicts with the EC's OP (which left off that option). Invalidation of such a ballot could give cause to seek an R4R, as there is no legal provision that requires a yes/no vote.
 
Once again our evil and oppressive government is trying to restrict our freedom of choice.

Down with the Elugarchy Eluarchy!

(Still in favor of being able to abstain.)
 
Legal Code:
13. The option to reopen nominations shall appear on the ballot as a separate question for each race.
14. Should a majority vote to reopen nominations for a given race, a further two days will be provided for candidacy declarations.
Click to expand...

This clearly means that a majority voting "Yes" is necessary. Therefore any vote that is not "Yes"... is "No."

The policy adopted by the election commission implements that statute.

This law can be changed by this body.
 
Eluvatar:
This clearly means that a majority voting "Yes" is necessary. Therefore any vote that is not "Yes"... is "No."
Click to expand...
It certainly does not mean any vote other than yes is a no (obviously majority implies enough yes votes). 5 yes, 3 no, x abstains is still a majority. That does bring up the point Silly made about a relative minority affecting RON though. Better to get rid of RON than restrict freedom of choice for citizens imo.
 
Eluvatar:
You could also revise the law to have it mean what you want it to mean..
Click to expand...
No need. The Legal Code is sufficient:

Section 4.2: Election Law Definitions:
3. "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.
Click to expand...
Abstentions are defined and their method of enumeration is spelt out. Acceptable for use in any election imo. Perhaps you could revise the Law to have it mean what you want it to mean..?
 
I believe the priority of the earlier Election Commission which adopted this ballot format was to make absolutely sure that people's votes would be counted the way they expected them to be counted (or not at all, if they did not follow directions, I suppose). I would suggest amending the definition of Abstention to also cover reopening nominations.
 
3. "Abstentions" are not votes for or against any candidate, and may not be used to determine the results of any election, nor the question on whether to reopen nominations. They may be used for quorum, activity, or other purposes.
Click to expand...
 
No, I am against that change.

If you don't care whether nominations are reopened, you do not want them reopened. To reopen nominations is a drastic step and I am wholeheartedly opposed to letting a tiny group of people - and historically it has been a very small group, between three and six excluding this election - disrupt an election timetable. Or, more worryingly, to disrupt most elections' timetables, because the number of people who simply do not care and just want to get their vote over with is going to be relatively high. Those people will abstain on the question, and then the very small number of people who want to reopen any election we have will have disproportionate power to make that happen.

Abstaining here means, and should be treated as, voting no. This change is absurd.
 
If I don't want nominations reopened, I am perfectly capable of making my intent clear to negative (yes, that's a verb) that question.

For whichever reason, a citizen should be entitled not to sway the outcome of the RON vote either way, while still voting for the candidate of their choice. Not to allow them to do so is what's absurd, and potentially disenfranchises this class of voters.
 
I have made public before that I dislike the way the RON works right now. And I currently would feel much more comfortable ABSTAINING that just selecting NO as the closest option that I have not to sway either way. I agree with Guy here. Now, should this be implemented, it may need in the long run a change also in the way the RON works if what SS predicts happens.
 
SillyString:
No, I am against that change.

If you don't care whether nominations are reopened, you do not want them reopened. To reopen nominations is a drastic step and I am wholeheartedly opposed to letting a tiny group of people - and historically it has been a very small group, between three and six excluding this election - disrupt an election timetable. Or, more worryingly, to disrupt most elections' timetables, because the number of people who simply do not care and just want to get their vote over with is going to be relatively high. Those people will abstain on the question, and then the very small number of people who want to reopen any election we have will have disproportionate power to make that happen.

Abstaining here means, and should be treated as, voting no. This change is absurd.
Click to expand...
:agree:
 
Guy:
For whichever reason, a citizen should be entitled not to sway the outcome of the RON vote either way, while still voting for the candidate of their choice.
Click to expand...
Prohibiting abstentions from being included in the "majority" clause does sway the outcome of the RON vote, and it makes it disproportionately more likely to pass.
 
Guy:
I think we've truly exhausted debate on this matter, so I'll motion to vote.
Click to expand...
The Speaker has the final say, but I think this is destined for formal debate. You can request to shorten it if you like, but if you want to expedite a vote, you'll need an x number of seconds, thirds, etc.
 
falapatorius:
Guy:
I think we've truly exhausted debate on this matter, so I'll motion to vote.
Click to expand...
The Speaker has the final say, but I think this is destined for formal debate. You can request to shorten it if you like, but if you want to expedite a vote, you'll need an x number of seconds, thirds, etc.
Click to expand...
If you like doing the Speaker's job, why didn't you run in the election? :P

Yes, this bill is now in formal debate. Formal Debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote will be scheduled.
 
quak1234:
falapatorius:
Guy:
I think we've truly exhausted debate on this matter, so I'll motion to vote.
Click to expand...
The Speaker has the final say, but I think this is destined for formal debate. You can request to shorten it if you like, but if you want to expedite a vote, you'll need an x number of seconds, thirds, etc.
Click to expand...
If you like doing the Speaker's job, why didn't you run in the election? :P

Yes, this bill is now in formal debate. Formal Debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote will be scheduled.
Click to expand...
Why would I? Zyvet is a fine Speaker. I was being helpful (albeit unnecessary in this instance, as it turns out). Perhaps you could've given the number of affirmative motions required to expedite the vote. Hmm?
 
falapatorius:
quak1234:
falapatorius:
The Speaker has the final say, but I think this is destined for formal debate. You can request to shorten it if you like, but if you want to expedite a vote, you'll need an x number of seconds, thirds, etc.
Click to expand...
If you like doing the Speaker's job, why didn't you run in the election? :P

Yes, this bill is now in formal debate. Formal Debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote will be scheduled.
Click to expand...
Why would I? Zyvet is a fine Speaker. I was being helpful (albeit unnecessary in this instance, as it turns out). Perhaps you could've given the number of affirmative motions required to expedite the vote. Hmm?
Click to expand...
To note, with regard to the matter of a motion for an immediate vote, presently such a motion would require the support of the proposer and two other members, though I should say I do not see that it was innappropriate for Quak not to specify that, as the proposer noted his awareness of that procedure yet did not mention contemplating utilising it.
 
Yeah, I don't think it's urgent. I'd rather give people the opportunity to raise issues / debate in the formal debate period. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top