 |
| |
|
|
Epistax
|
 |
of Bananas
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
I don't mind whether or not there is an abstain optionon, or whether or not they count as no's, as long as it is explicitly stated in the poll.
Options: Yea, Nay, Abstain (no)
Simply by reading peoples comments, you can see some people abstain for reasons other than dissatisfaction with the poll, including not knowing much about it, and having no opinion.
I would like to tell people, however, that using this system gives us less information. If we use abstain as truely abstain-- as in counts for nothing in the vote-- then we can see how well points were made by both sides. By making them count as no votes however, people might abstain for different reasons. Heck, someone could decide he might as well vote abstain instead of nay.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Captain
|
 |
by Divine Right
May 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Why not just have two more required options: abstain, which means you're there and voting but don't want to affect the outcome (doesn't count as yea or nay), and "I want a repoll": if it gets the majority, it forces a repoll without the weeks of waiting being required. If it doesn't get the majority, the result is nay if the nay votes are greater than the yea votes, and repoll if the yea votes are greater. |
Good idea, but I'd change the last section to
quote:
if it (I want a repoll) gets the majority, it forces a repoll without the weeks of waiting being required. If it doesn't get the majority, the result is nay if the nay votes are greater than the yea votes, and yea if the yea votes are greater.
|
italics, bold mine
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
 |
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Captain
Good idea, but I'd change the last section to
quote:
if it (I want a repoll) gets the majority, it forces a repoll without the weeks of waiting being required. If it doesn't get the majority, the result is nay if the nay votes are greater than the yea votes, and yea if the yea votes are greater. |
italics, bold mine |
This is a good idea for official polls about the game which need to be decided quickly if possible; but I think amendments should equal a repoll in the case of a yea+repoll majority, since some repoll voters will become yea voters the next time around (assuming it's rewritten to people's satisfaction), hopefully giving it the needed 2/3rds.
This is because I don't think repolls due to the amendment itself will be all that common, especially if the amendment is bounced around in a prepoll discussion and compromises are made to make everyone happy. Once that happens, there aren't many more changes to be made, and I think votes would generally be along yea/nay lines. This way, the repoll option would mainly be for occurences like the turnchat scheduling amendment, which a lot of posters liked but didn't want to require a full weeks notice. If repoll had been available and repoll+yea had won a repoll, the amendment could have been quickly changed and put up for a vote immediately, without the two week's wait, and, hopefully, the result will satisfy more people - as opposed to only the less than 2/3rds that voted yea but got a boost from the repoll vote being the only ones who liked the amendment, but letting it pass anyway.
Whew... that's a long paragraph. Hope I got my point across.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
mtgillespie
|
|
Manchester, England
Oct 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by notyoueither
I would say that 'abstains' should be consistent in their meaning regardless of the poll. The game needs simplicity, not further controversy.
Do we allow poll makers to redefine 'yes' and 'no' with each poll? Allowing 'abstain' to mean different things in each poll would allow for some tricky issues to reach the court and compel the court to interpret what some given group of citizens wanted. One interpretation too many if you ask me.
|
quote:
For amendment polls, I would be in favour of saying that 'yes' must outnumber 'no' by 67% to 33% of that sub total AND that 'yes' must outnumber BOTH 'no' and 'abstain' by at least 1 vote. |
I posted a thread about this whole issue a little while ago. in it, i suggested that abstain should be used to force a re-poll, in cases where the idea is right, but there is bad wording, or just one bad clause in a whole amendment etc. I propose that abstains do not count in the totals, as NYE states here, but that a certain percentage (30%?) of abstains allows an immediate re-poll after re-writing, rather than waiting 3 weeks.
If people have no particular feelings either way on an issue, they show that by NOT voting. They don't need an abstain option. I also don't think this is a good way to keep track of voter numbers. A weighted average of the monthly elections should be sufficient. I can't believe there are many people who will vote on an amendment to the constitution but NOT vote for a minister or ministers!
Togas : Next to the "vote" button under the poll, it says "click here to view results". You don't need to vote to see how things are going.
Kloreep : Recently, there have been several examples where it has been shown that the pre-poll discussion was missed, or it missed a flaw in the amendment, and it had to be re-done. the recent one about notice for turnchats and a couple of Trip's amendments, for example. It should happen less, but it still will. This will allow us a get out clause.
quote:
For other threads, then... let 'yes' outnumber 'no'. Flat. Abstain with a stated reason in the thread still has it's effect. You are a citizen. You had your say. Everyone who was interested was exposed to your view. |
 I don't agree with this, however. Other polls should have abstain with the same meaning as amendments. People will always quote results of polls. They WON'T go down the thread counting how many people stated that they abstain. We need it to be stated clearly in the results that the poll was flawed in some way. You should still state your objections in the thread, but you need it registered as well. As was said before, if you don't have a strong enough opinion either way, just don't vote.
Edit : To add apology for going on and on and on...... 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MrWhereItsAt
|
 |
New Year's Resolution: 2005 is the year of Where It's At - come get some.
Nov 2001
time: 17:21
|
|
mtgillespie, you have the same thoughts as me.
If you have no feelings on the matter, why even bother voting, since no-one's going to look at such an option.
OTOH, the way I use abstain is as a protest function - there's something about the poll I don't like. Of course, I follow this up with a post explanation for my vote, but then I like to do that anyway.  This way abstain is actually an important vote, not an "I don't care" that no-one cares about when looking at the results.
Two abstains, an "I don't care" and a protest, is too much, I think. I really don't see the need for the the former, just the latter.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mtgillespie
Kloreep : Recently, there have been several examples where it has been shown that the pre-poll discussion was missed, or it missed a flaw in the amendment, and it had to be re-done. the recent one about notice for turnchats and a couple of Trip's amendments, for example. It should happen less, but it still will. This will allow us a get out clause. |
This is part of my reason for the repoll option (hence the example of the turnchat notice one).
Also, I think it should be a vote for a repoll, not a vote to declare the poll invalid. Two points:
It makes more sense to combine it with the yes vote to determine majoritys. Declaring a poll invalid is an objection to the presentation of the poll; it doesn't have anything to do with the actual amendment or action being polled on. Asking for a repoll, however, simply means you think the amendment/plan is a good idea, but want it refined before accepting it.
Also, it seems to me declaring a poll invalid is the court's job, though a citizen does, of course, have to object and bring it before the court. I don't think we should allow a majority to become a psuedo-court.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mtgillespie
|
|
Manchester, England
Oct 2001
time: 05:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kloreep
This is part of my reason for the repoll option (hence the example of the turnchat notice one).
Also, I think it should be a vote for a repoll, not a vote to declare the poll invalid. Two points:
It makes more sense to combine it with the yes vote to determine majoritys. Declaring a poll invalid is an objection to the presentation of the poll; it doesn't have anything to do with the actual amendment or action being polled on. Asking for a repoll, however, simply means you think the amendment/plan is a good idea, but want it refined before accepting it.
Also, it seems to me declaring a poll invalid is the court's job, though a citizen does, of course, have to object and bring it before the court. I don't think we should allow a majority to become a psuedo-court. |
I think we're agreeing on most things. 3 buttons, yes, no and 1 other. The other being re-poll, whether we call it that or abstain, that is it's meaning. You're right that there shouldn't be a button for invalidate, as that is the courts job.
The area where i disagree is then adding the re-poll option to one of the yes or no totals. If the re-poll's get a certain percentage (i think 30%, but i'm open to suggestions), that is the result, and it is re-submitted with alterations. This allows for the case where there is a lack of clarity, and people are unsure whether to vote yes or no because they are not sure of the outcome. We cannot assume that we know which side a voter is leaning on unless they vote yes or no. Re-poll just has to mean undecided, for whatever reason.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kloreep
|
|
of the pillow
Jun 2002
time: 00:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by mtgillespie
I think we're agreeing on most things. 3 buttons, yes, no and 1 other. The other being re-poll, whether we call it that or abstain, that is it's meaning. |
I think there should be four options: yes, no, repoll, and abstain. I think we should have abstain as an option to not affect the voting, but show you're there and reading even if you don't have an opinion. This means it will be a hassle to determine what's winning in a poll, since we'll have to take the numbers for the three options that are actually to be counted and determine the percentages ourselves, but I think it would be worth it.
Someone pointed out in another thread that the abstain option would also be useful if we decide to require quorums on votes (though that's another issue).
quote:
The area where i disagree is then adding the re-poll option to one of the yes or no totals. If the re-poll's get a certain percentage (i think 30%, but i'm open to suggestions), that is the result, and it is re-submitted with alterations. This allows for the case where there is a lack of clarity, and people are unsure whether to vote yes or no because they are not sure of the outcome. We cannot assume that we know which side a voter is leaning on unless they vote yes or no. Re-poll just has to mean undecided, for whatever reason. |
I should have clarified myself in the post you quote. I don't think a repoll+yes majority that the yes doesn't have by itself should equal yes; I think it should equal a repoll. However, we do seem to disagree on what results should mean a repoll.
30% I disagree with. I think repoll should only win if neither yes or no gets the needed % of the vote (more than 50% for either one in general polls, 2/3rds for yes and more than 1/3rd for no for amendments). The reason for this is that a lot of non-amendment polls are for the game, and it can be hard enough to make a three-day poll that fits in the turnchat schedule. For amendments, 2/3rds yes means there won't be a 30% repoll vote anyway, and more than 1/3rd no means there are enough people who simply hate the idea it won't have much chance of passing.
This means if, say, Plan Spectrum - a plan, not an amendment - gets more than 50% of the vote against it, the Plan is blocked, even if, say, 35% voted for a repoll. If it instead got more than 50% yes and 35% repoll, it's a yes. In either case, we would need to move the game along and so a repoll would be useless, especially since there's a majority anyway. If, on the other hand, it was 40% yes, 40% no, and 20% repoll, it's a deadlock - there is no majority, so we would have to try to repoll it, even though there probably wouldn't be time.
If Amendment XVII: Seperation of Banana and State gets more than 1/3rd no votes, it will lose and the three weeks wait will be required in order for it to be polled again - even if repoll got more than 50%. The reason for this is if there are enough people who hate the idea, there's no reason to keep repolling, even if a fair amount of the voters (or even the majority, for an amendment) think it needs refining; after all, it's doubtful it'll pass anyway.
Edit: I used a bad example. In fact, I used one entirely counter to the system I am proposing.  Corrected. I also realized one situation with amendments I was proposing could never happen (nothing could have a 66% yes vote AND a 30% repoll vote).
Edit to edit: Made the post more coherent. Let's see if I can set a record for edits. 
Last edited by Kloreep on 10-08-2002 at 01:06
|
|
| |
|
|
|
DAVOUT
|
 |
AUERSTADT
Jun 2002
time: 05:21
|
|
The four options.
Edit : I have already asked it.
Last edited by DAVOUT on 10-08-2002 at 01:29
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-08-2002 17:51
. I don't understand this, but if that's something that matters to you, post that you don't care.
|