I would agree with this and cannot see why we need 'Abstain'. If a member of TB wishes to support the status-quo they simply vote No!

It allows one to make a statement about the issue, though most/all of us are willing to explain why we voted the way we did.

If a TB member wants to make a statement with his abstention, shouldn't he really abstain rather than cast a disguised "no" vote?

That's called not voting.

Abstaining from doing something is called not doing it.

That includes voting.

Here, however, we make believe that the person has actually voted and consider it a "no" vote.

You recognized the illogic of that in 2005 when you voted to change the system and not view abstentions as having any value -- either for or against a motion.

Here, abstaining is not voting on the issue as opposed to not participating.

I've been a part of many votes with TalkBoard, as you point out. I prefer the current system for the reasons I've already given in this thread.

"None of the above" is a simple option to "Abstain".

I'd be good with that assuming it still requires 2/3rds of those voting, including those stating None of the Above, to vote yes.

There is one issue with forcing people to not vote: votes here are open for two weeks. Unlike in-person roll-call votes, where votes are only open for a few hours, a single person who is abstaining can delay the outcome of the vote for two weeks, even if the other eight members vote on the first day the vote is open.

I propose changing it to "And now for something completely different..." ;)

Well, the recent debacle of votes and repeals and absentions has been quite Pythonesque....

If a TalkBoard member has no intention of voting, that member can email/PM the TalkBoard president and tell him/her of this decision so that the vote can be closed early. While this is not in the TalkBoard guidelines specifically as it hasn't seemed to come up, I see no reason why anyone would object.

While "none of the above" might be good where a yes/no vote is not called for (eg, in the election of TB officers), it makes no sense where you are being asked if you agree to something like the establishment of a new forum.

You either agree or you don't agree. There is no other possibility.

If you agree, you vote in favor. If you disagree, you vote no. If you have no opinion you should not vote (which is what abstaining means) but it seems odd to me that your lack of a vote should count as a "no".

That being said, deciding now and putting into writing that it will be viewed as a "no" is better than the current situation -- where your abstention is whatever a current TB president wants it to be.

A vote with 5 in favor, 2 against, and 2 abstaining will not pass while Gleff is president but might pass when someone else is. Does that make sense to anyone?

It's possible for a person to see both sides or neither side.

Also, the way the guidelines are written now, I don't think it matters whether gleff is president or not president. 5 in favor with 9 choosing an available option is still not 2/3rds.

But 5 in favor with 7 choosing is 2/3rds -- and the current guidelines do not spell out what "participating" in a vote is. (The 2005 motion, which was the last to spell it out, said that only "yes" or "no" votes are counted.)

No, not really much sense, at least not to me as I don't think it's too much to expect that TB members form an opinion on the motion at hand.

I don't recall ever abstaining on a motion on TB but I could certainly foresee instances where I would have no opinion and would prefer that the decision be taken by those TB members who do.

I would also support a change to a simple majority but a majority of members of talkboard (i.e. 5 in practice).
rationale: the 2/3 rule is presumably designed to ensure that a substantial majority favours the motion. It seems to me that requiring a simple majority of members would be high enough a threshold to satisfy that requirement and would avoid problems with abstentions.
I would be less confident with a simple majority of members 'present' or 'participating' as it opens the possibility of a motion being voted through without very clear support in TB.

It should be noted that even with abstentions not be counted, an abstention either keeps the 2/3rds majority or actually increases it.

If no one abstains, 6 members must vote "yes": 6 out of 9 = 66 2/3%.

If one member abstains, 6 members must vote "yes": 6 out of 8 = 75%.

If two members abstain, 5 members must vote "yes": 5 out of 7 = 71.4%

If three members abstain, 4 members must vote "yes": 4 out of 6 = 66 2/3%.

If four members abstain, 4 members must vote "yes": 4 out of 5: = 80%.

If five members abstain, 3 members must vote "yes": 3 out of 4 = 75%.

If six members abstain, 2 members must vote "yes": 2 out of 3 = 66 2/3%.

If seven members abstain, 2 members must vote "yes": 2 out of 2 = 100%.

If eight members abstain, 1 member must vote "yes": 1 out of 1 = 100%.

I doubt that we will ever see a situation where more than 3 abstain, and even that will be rare, but even in theory a 2/3rds majority of those voting -- minimum -- is required.

Dovster, I am not making up rules, they are pretty clearly written. It seems a pretty tortured reading to suggest that someone who goes into the poll thread and selects 'Abstain', submits their vote, has not 'participated.'

I was in favor of this language when it was adopted by the TalkBoard but that does not mean I am somehow using a degree of discretion to enforce my preferences. :confused:

Gleff, I don't doubt for a moment that you believe that, but I see it completely oppositely -- that it is impossible that by abstaining someone is somehow participating.

Had the guidelines spelled out that an abstention is a participation, I would have thought it was an unwise change but I would not have posted about it.

How you see it is irrelevant if how it's written is different. There are a million ways to interpret things, but as the 2008 wording overrides the 2005 wording, and when someone makes a selection out of their choices, regardless of what that selection means, they are participating and 2/3rds of those participating are required to choose the "yes" selection for a motion to pass.

You say that the current guidelines don't spell out what participating means...the guidlines state:

and

So based on that, the vote options are "yes, no, or abstain" and 2/3rds of those casting a vote of "yes, no, or abstain" must vote "yes".

It's quite simple and clear.

Sorry, but that is like saying that if you are asked if you want Pepsi or Coke, and you say that you don't want either, you have chosen a soft drink.

Wrong.

The question is not Pepsi or Coke, it's Pepsi, yes or no.

One knows one has to make choices when one stands for election to TalkBoard and usually any other advisory board.

"If you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice." - Rush

:)

Fair enough, but if you say "I don't know" you can't be said to have made a choice.

"I don't know." should seldom be the answer.

There's usually discussion in both the public and private forums.

There's discussion before the vote to shape the motion.

There's discussion while the vote is in progress and there's 2 weeks to vote.

I have a hard time believing "I don't know" is still the answer after all the above have occurred, other than very rarely.

Yet, after all of that, you want the TB member who says "I don't know" to have his announcement counted as a "No" vote. :confused:

There is also the option of not voting.

Which, as you know, is frowned upon to the point that if a member misses three votes he can be voted off of TB. That is the only reason that the "abstention" option exists. It tells other TB members (and the public) that you have paid attention to the debate, are interested in doing your job, but do not want to (or cannot) make a decision in this particular case.

That's 3 consecutive votes - big difference.

When "you have paid attention to the debate, are interested in doing your job, but do not want to (or cannot) make a decision in this particular case." happens more than very rarely, we have an elected representative who really cannot or will not do his/her job.

Seems so to me. If I go to the polling station to vote and spoil my ballot I've still participated in the election and I believe the same is true of TB in that opting to abstain is still participating in the ballot.

I'm not saying this would ever happen, but there is a danger to the integrity of TalkBoard by following this train of thought. An unpopular-with-his-fellow-TalkBoard-members member could actually fairly easily be removed from the TalkBoard simply by being forced to not vote in three votes in a row. All that has to happen is two members who don't like another member move and second an issue the unpopular member would consider a conflict of interest. In order to prevent his abstention from affecting the outcome of the election, the second member would be obligated to refrain from voting. Three of these in a row, and all of a sudden, the unpopular member is up for a vote of no confidence.

It's an extreme case and will likely never happen in our normally fairly friendly community, but the rules as currently interpreted by the TalkBoard president would allow this to happen.

Regardless, I agree with Dovster that the guidelines as written in 2008 are not as clear as some others are arguing here that it is (I for one misread it originally), and while this is a minor issue, I support clarifying the guidelines in any form, even if it isn't my preferred interpretation.

Can you explain why you think the 2008 guidelines are unclear.

tcook052, we have had quite a few intelligent people (and also me) read the guidelines and come to different conclusions as to what they mean.

That, in itself, should prove they are unclear.

So you propose to clarify guidelines not everyone finds unclear? If there is no consensus on even if those guidelines are unclear, what possible revision could be made?

Regardless my post was meant to draw more out of TB's newest member not elicit more words from those who've already been generous with theirs on the topic to date.

Thanks for the grin. I love self-deprecating humor.

I favor eliminating the Abstain option or changing the way it counts toward the 2/3. I'll accept either change. I won't vote for the status quo, which is not as crystal clear as a guideline should be.

And devoid of meaning, since "to abstain" means "to not vote." You can't vote and not vote at the same time.

I have no problems with putting it that way. Opting to abstain from voting in no way is logically inconsistent with participating in a meeting (physically or online) in which a vote is held.

But calling an abstention [from voting] a kind of vote is just not logically or grammatically possible.

If the options were yes/no/present then there would be no question about the meaning (or lack thereof) of the term or whether someone "participated."

So you're saying that the 2008 TB guidelines about "participation" are clear in that any member who opts to abstain is "participating" in the ballot. Isn't that how the guidelines read? (My bold)

No, not really. The notion of a "vote to abstain" is simply fundamentally incoherent, self-contradictory, and oxymoronic. That's not a slur or value judgment, it's just the way the language and logic works here.

I think the intent of the rule is to give those who have in fact participated in the meeting regarding the issue that leads to a vote a way to show that they have done so even if they don't wish to register an affirmative or negative vote.

So, changing the word "abstain" to "present" would solve a lot of the problem that this inadvertent, no doubt, misuse of language has created.

My head hurts.

I am not sure that you have really thought this through. Imagine the situation where a TB member cannot participate in a particular vote for good reasons. Then comes another vote in which the same TB member abstains. The motion is defeated but comes back immediately after with a slightly different wording. As far as that TB member is concerned, that motion is essentially the same and (s)he abstains again. You therefore have three votes in which the TB member has not voted. This is hardly an outlandish example and it certainly does not show a clear case of dereliction of duty.

I am with Dovster on this. Anybody who has ever engaged in hermeneutics over a period, whether it be for legal texts, sacred texts, etc... will be familiar with the (not so rare) situation where everybody agrees that a text is clear and yet fundamentally disagrees on what that text means. Simply repeating at nauseam that the text is clear is just unhelpful in such situations. Far better to clarify it. Not really an option for sacred texts but definitely a viable one for legal ones. And if we need to clarify, why not consider what it is that the rule seeks to achieve and whether it is not just easily achieved by another, more simple rule such as the majority of members as I suggested in an earlier post?
Perhaps there might be a case for a supermajority for changes to rules of procedures of TB, so what I would suggest would be:
1) simple majority of members (i.e 5) for ordinary votes
2) super majority of 2/3 of TB members (i.e. 6) for 'constitutional' amendments to TB's rules of procedure.

The numbers posted by Dovster in post #98 show how nonsensical the 2/3 rule is when there is a large number of abstentions: what could possibly be the purpose of a 2/3 majority rule when 5 or more abstain?
You could counter-object that this is unlikely to happen in practice but the very fact that it CAN happen demonstrate that the rule is a bad rule.