View Topic

One was an amendment to the Fundamental Laws, one was a Statutory Law...

I'm relying here on what Wuufu actually said, if a supermajority if required, then an actual majority should actually agree. If simply majority of aye-nay voters is enough then the laws should reflect that.

In any case, this discussion is not about Chanku, beyond his motives for bringing this issue up.

I'm relying here on what Wuufu actually said, if a supermajority if required, then an actual majority should actually agree. If simply majority of aye-nay voters is enough then the laws should reflect that.

This is the heart of it, I believe.  If a vote requires a supermajority, an abstention is, FOIAP, a nay, since only aye votes are counted against total other votes. 

As Wuufu then proceeded to point out, unless it's qualified to be like that in the law itself, the historical assumption is that only aye and nay votes affect the outcome, not abstentions.

Abstention votes are fundamentally the same as when a voter is absent; the voter simply makes their abstention public. The problem lies in when legislatures treat the two as if they are different.

Abstention votes are fundamentally the same as when a voter is absent; the voter simply makes their abstention public. The problem lies in when legislatures treat the two as if they are different.

Though I will say I'm not opposed to the idea of separating the reasoning as Abstain: Neutral and Abstain: Not voting.

Although in the 2nd's case, I don't know why you wouldn't just vote NAY at that point if you're simply just saying you're not going to vote...since normally the reasoning in that case would be that you don't agree with it in some way.

I need to rant. That will be in the spoiler section. This will be civil.

Does it matter why you abstain? I don't think so, but if you really must have a clear cut, ironclad definition I'll get right on that. If you fail to share your opinion when I ask for it, and I will ask for it, I will ignore any criticisms you have and put forth after I propose legislation to the UH.

Chanku, please just stop.

Everyone, please stop with the pointless fighting and please understand that the UH is doing the best we can.

And now the rant. I know that this will probably destroy any good will I have but I have to say it or I'll go nuts.

Rant. Contains vulgarities.

WHAT THE FUCK IS WRONG WITH YOU PEOPLE? Do we really need a clear cut and ironclad definition of a FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE? IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE SHOULD BE DISCUSSING HERE? ITS A FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE! Even if the definition changed, while the Act was being voted on the definition of a FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE is neither Aye or Nay. It's not counted in the final vote tally as anything more than a FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE. And of all things, the definition of a FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE is what you want to debate? If you had concerns about the Act, if you didn't want it passed, if you had an opinion why did you wait till the GODDAMN RATIFICATION TO VOICE IT? WE ASKED YOU SO MANY TIMES, GODDAMN IT! We have PM's, we are online, why now? Why now? And why did this whole abstain vote discussion start now? Goddamn, I feel like I wasted everyone's time with this fucking Act. Next time, if there is a next time, don't keep your views to the LAST POSSIBLE GODDAMN SECOND.

And Chanku, stop being such a PETTY, SELF IMPORTANT PETULANT CHILD! BLOODY HELL! You didn't get your way. BOO FUCKING HOO. I didn't get my way, the OA was not my first choice of reform but I didn't run around, flamming and spamming like A SPOILT FUCKING BRAT. And congratulations, you just got yourself kicked out of the Royal Family. Well. Goddamn. Done.

And everyone else, stop with the pointless fighting, please! God! The way you speak to each other, I would think that you hated each other! I know that this is a hot topic and tempers are high but for the love of Christ my colleagues and I are doing the best we can to keep our promises. Please stop acting like we put forward an idea to kill your parents and eat your babies!

So I said that. I probably ensured a million dislike votes and that I'll never be elected again. I just had to say my piece.

I'm going to go somewhere else and cool down.

* Wintermoot gently pats North on the back

That's it North, just get it all out.

I ranted to Wintermoot in private. I basically said the same things in less colourful terms. I'll be myself again tomorrow, but right now I just need space.

Also, thanks for listening to what I'm sure must have been the biggest display of idiocy in all of recorded history, Wintermoot. I needed that. And in case this sounds like sarcasm, I'm being serious. I would have exploded if I couldn't have blown off steam with you.

Not a problem. I know how much of yourself you've invested in this...I would be beyond frustrated in your position. And I'm frustrated too...I was looking forward to concluding the Convention and moving on with other business, but in the end we discovered a major issue in the community and that in itself is good too.

It's important that we recognize that we're debating with friends, and not allow what should be a civil debate to escalate to the point that things get out of hand. We don't want to be like other regions where major disagreements lead to divisions that result in a faction leaving...we were founded to be the exact opposite of that. It's important that we don't lose sight of the fact that we're debating with people we care about.

The problem with debates is that they can get heated to that degree sometimes, like this one has proven.  I'm glad that you both were able to let off some of that heat though.  I'd rather see an incredibly long rant and getting it out instead of it seeping out in bits and pieces everywhere whilest it builds up even worse.

It always makes me sad when things get heated to such a high degree, since in the end at least most of us are wanting the same thing.  D:

I do agree that people need to lay off the UH though.  They're doing the best they can right now, and any sense of belittling people that you elected to office is really unnecessary.  They've never given indication before that they can't be trusted or anything of the sort, and I am actually a little disappointed that people haven't been having more faith in them.

Back on topic though...I think the problem with Abstain votes only arises when the bill in progress requires a Supermajority.  Would the abstain not count towards that?  If so, that might constitute a problem down the road, since any abstentions should count against the supermajority.  In a regular bill, I don't see the issue with not counting it, but a bill requiring supermajority I feel like should be a little different.

In real-life bodies, the "two-thirds supermajority" tends to be better defined. Here is the relevant passage in Robert's Rules of Order Revised (1915 edition):

A two-thirds vote means two-thirds of the votes cast, ignoring blanks which should never be counted. This must not be confused with a vote of two-thirds of the members present, or two-thirds of the members, terms sometimes used in by-laws. To illustrate the difference: Suppose 14 members vote on a question in a meeting of a society where 20 are present out of a total membership of 70, a two-thirds vote would be 10; a two-thirds vote of the members present would be 14; and a vote of two-thirds of the members would be 47.

Edit: For reference, Robert's Rules treats abstention as not voting.

I liked the reference to A Modest Proposal in your rant, North!

I liked the whole rant. I had to really deny my impulse to make it my signature (with all credit to North, of course). It was absolutely beautiful, and the style was superb. Using A FUCKING ABSTAIN VOTE in capital letters the whole time was a stylistic decision that Stevie King would be proud of. Two thumbs up, I say.

Also, thank you for posting that information, taulover.