It's a bad thing, destructive and divisive.
I cannot image a circumstance in which a futile proposal would improve the atmosphere on the TalkBoard or make it more likely for the proposal to pass in the future. The opposite will happen: bad feelings and entrenchment of the opposition.
IMHO, there is only one reason for a "no hope" proposal: to play to the voters. We see this in politics all the time. One side makes a doomed extremist proposal and tells the voters: "If you elect more of us next time so that the other side can't stop us, this is what we'll give you."
I categorically reject this sort of political game-playing. I don't believe that it has any place anywhere on FT. Furthermore if I were Randy and the TalkBoard became such a place, I would eliminate it.
Please help take the politics out of the TalkBoard by not voting for candidates who will behave like politicians. Instead, look at Question 13 and vote for consensus builders.
In the absence of a public read-only version of the private board, the only way to communicate that a motion has been considered is by a vote. No matter how many times it is said, it is NOT political game-playing to expect an elected representative to commit, via a vote how he or she feels about something brought forth by a member. And some disagreement on the TalkBoard is healthy -- how else is a true consensus driven?
I would not shy away from a vote. I pledge that I will not abstain from a single vote should I be elected (provided I am not incapacitated) and would not try to keep a topic from being brought to a vote once all possible attempts at forming a consensus are made.