Originally Posted by
Jenbel
Why do you think that status quo is better than what has been proposed? the only reason you seem to have given is to have it counted as 'participation'. If that is your only concern, it would be easy to have participation defined as 'yes no abstention' for the purposes of not being thrown of TB for non-participation.
Since there are penalties for not voting multiple times, I think there should be 4 options: yes, no, abstain, and not voting. Abstain allows someone to not vote yes or no and not get into trouble for not participating. Some would like to change this option to "present" but I think that's kind of a redundant name. Besides, what's in a name?
Now, as to why I think abstain should be a de facto "no". I don't think that there should be the possibility of a vote passing without a quorum, e.g. 3 yes, 1 no, 5 abstain. I also feel that change should indeed be difficult to effect, hence the reason for the super-majority in the first place.