What's lost on me is how anyone thinks simply not voting should carry the same weight as actually filling out the ballot and explicitly casting a "no" vote.

Counting all non-votes as "no" leaves no room for those who simply haven't made up their mind, are on the fence, or for whatever reason wish to reserve their right to abstain from declaring an opinion.

Imagine, just for a moment, if we were to implement the old union voting rules in our U.S. Presidential elections. In the U.S., (unfortunately) we're doing pretty good if we can get a 60% voter turnout every four years. That means that 40% of the eligible voters aren't even casting a ballot. What if we were to assign their "votes" to a specific candidate automatically (perhaps the incumbent for purposes of discussion?). Suddenly whichever candidate we assign those votes to has a huge benefit and only needs to garner a small percentage of the people who actually vote in order to win the election. See how crazy that is to assign so much weight and value to a "non-vote"? Everyone who wins a first term would be essentially guaranteed a second term (I can hear the conservatives/Republicans squirming in their seats). It would be incredibly difficult to vote out someone after their first term, just like with the previous union rules, it's incredibly difficult to vote in a union.

Why should it be any different here? Because something 75 years old says so? It was wrong 75 years ago and is wrong today. If you want your voice heard and your opinion counted, then vote. If you don't, or don't care, then don't vote, and don't be counted. That's how "real" elections that affect us all work, whether it's electing someone to office or passing legislation.

It doesn't surprise me that the business community (Delta) and the anti-union folks here are outraged at this change as previously, there was a good amount of people they could automatically count on as a "no" vote for the union, which would satisfy their own personal beliefs.