Gang,

Another thread is getting sidetracked by the issue of whether "Abstain" counts as a vote for purposes of the 2/3 calculation.

I am moving those posts to this thread and that discussion can continue here.

William

Discussion Thread: Talkboard Voting
 

While it did not impact on this particular motion, there seems to be a misunderstanding among TalkBoard members as to what is required for a vote to pass.


The rules for what is needed to pass a motion were changed in 2005, as shown in the below motion. It doesn't matter if TalkBoard doesn't have a full complement of members, if one or more of those members doesn't bother voting, or if one or more abstains.

In any of those cases their votes simply do not count.

lucky9876coins' count was wrong. The vote was not defeated 44%, 44%, 11%. It was defeated 50%-50%. It requires 2/3rds of those who voted to be in favor -- and abstaining does not count as voting.

Theoretically, there could be 4 abstaining, 4 not bothering to vote, and only 1 membere in favor and the measure would pass 1-0.

Here is the motion which determined that:

but the 2005 vote would be superceded by the publication of TB rules last year - and I don't recall that vote forming part of the new rules (in part because I think but am not sure) that it might have been changed again.

The actual section from the TB guidelines is:
That to me would indicate that if someone abstained, they were participating. If someone didn't vote, they didn't participate.

(Was there a later change which amended the 2005 rule? ISTR there was, but could also be making it up entirely - certainly would have happened before I was on TB, so that leaves a small window, and I could be making it up!).

The entire point of the 2005 motion was that an abstention meant a TB member was not participating. I believe that a specific motion, overruling that decision, would have to be passed to change that.

In this case, it did not matter but if some members of TB believe that abstention is considered participating, then I very strongly urge it to have a vote on the issue -- before an abstaining vote means that some future motion did or did not pass.

I'm confused.

To "abstain" is to abstain from voting. I.e., to not vote. If you don't vote, then you haven't "participated" in a vote -- you've simply failed to vote. An "abstention" is not some third kind of vote; it's not to vote at all.

Some of the confusion, istm, comes from somehow thinking that an "abstention" is in fact a vote of some sort -- but that would be an oxymoron: a vote which is not a vote.

That is what TalkBoard decided in 2005. As far as I know, it is still the rule. However, there seems to be some disagreement as witness the two posts from TB members that I quoted.

The worst possible situation is to have this still be a matter of debate when an abstention determines a contentious issue. If some TB members disagree with you (and me) they should settle the question now.

In case of disagreement on the intepretation of the rules, then Roberts applies and the TB President has the final say on what the rules mean.

Give koko his due, he did his damndest to cover all bases - including where TB members start to argue over the meaning of the word 'is' ;)

And since the TB guidelines of 2008 override the 2005 motion, they are the only arbiter of how votes are counted. It really doesn't matter what was decided in 2005, if the wording from that motion was not included in the guidelines of 2008 - which it wasn't.

But then you have our system, where someone can be voted off TB if they don't participate in 3 consecutive votes. And an abstention is not counted as non-participation under TB rules. Failure to vote is non-participation. That's why we have an abstention option - so that you can tell the difference between those who didn't vote and those who chose not to cast a vote for yay or nay.

But as I said, the fact we are disagreeing on it is immaterial - if TB can't agree, then off to Roberts, if Roberts is unclear, the TB President rules.

I see your point, but it seems to me that the TB rules just unnecessarily muddy things by using a word (to abstain) that doesn't mean what it says.

The same "participation" effect could be achieved by allowing someone to vote "present," as is widely done in other systems.

If we have to argue about fineprint of TB regulations the whole purpose is lost and forfeited IMHO. :o

No it wouldn't. It'd be an explanation by the mod who brought it up in the first place. It's not a discussion of the closing - it's a discussion of the member actions. How are members supposed to know what terrible thing happened that caused the closure of a thread so they don't repeat it again. ;)

And speaking in general terms, not in specifics, if mods of a forum were to come to TalkBoard to ask for a new subforum or forum "regulations", in order to protect a single thread that they may closed down at their leisure without a valid explanation, I, as a TB member, would be less likely to seriously consider their requests on the principle that it's not best for FlyerTalk if something that is designed for the community isn't being managed in the best interest of the community. If a forum mod is using the fact they have to moderate a thread & that's part of the reason why a new forum is needed, I just don't see that as a valid argument and view it as potentially poor moderation (although I can't 100% stand by that as I don't know all the facts).

Agreed. ^ To select "Abstain" from a vote is still participating in the vote because they selected either "Yes", "No", or "Abstain" - which were the given choices.

Yes, but it just seems ripe for confusion to use a word that means "not-to-vote" to indicate a vote.

And this is hardly a "fine print" thing, but fundamental to the very concept of knowing what it means to do business.

Voting to not vote (which IS what the language says) is either unnecessarily confusing, an oxymoron, or a distinction without a difference.

What the word "abstain" here is clearly meant to imply is that one was present for the discussion.

But misusing the notion of "voting" to indicate that may be indicative of part of the problem the TB is having in terms of, uh, clarity issues. :)

Was there any decision after the 2005 one which supports what you are saying?

Note that this in fact begs the very question at issue.

You guys want to start a new thread re: what constitutes abstain or 'is'? ;)

Cheers.

I can't disagree more strongly. If there is one thing that I learned during my two terms on TalkBoard is that the rules should be set in stone and understood by all before important issues or personalities are involved.

No, but thanks for asking :)

The fundamental un-clarity of this point is the root of the problem of how to even know how to count the votes on this (or most any) motion, since if you take the plain meaning of the language it would appear that the vote was in fact 50/50.

This business is going to continue to plague the TB because to abstain from voting -- to not vote! -- cannot with any sense mean to participate in voting.

Let folks somehow otherwise note their presence in a debate rather than using a term to mean something it doesn't mean -- thereby continuing to assure that these discussions will have a long and hearty future.

FWIW, I did discuss with gleff in his role as TalkBoard President what the implication of "abstain" votes was before I voted that way. So I was fully aware of the ramifications of voting "abstain" as opposed to either "yes" or "no".

As long as TalkBoard has 9 active members, 6 votes are required to pass a motion by the required 2/3 majority. If 1 member either fails to vote (8 votes cast) or votes "abstain" (9 votes cast including 1 "abstain" vote), the same 6 votes are still required to pass the motion by the 2/3 majority. Hence, as long as only 1 abstention occurs during a vote, it is a moot point as the mathematics is the same regardless of the interpretation.

It may be useful for TalkBoard to pass a clarification of this rule for future situations where multiple people vote to "abstain".

Thanks for that crystal-clear explanation, B747-437B. ^

That was true before the 2005 motion was passed. I don't see how Gleff came to that conclusion in view of that motion -- unless there was a later one passed which I have never heard of nor can find in the list of TalkBoard decisions.

Again, the announcement in 2005 read as follows:

While we digress on the rules on voting (yes, it is important)...

Is everyone really satisfied that there:
(1) was a vote that recognized "that some content in the Mileage Run Discussions forum should be subject to access restrictions to be determined",
(2) then a vote passed to make "Mileage Run forum be accessible only to registered and logged in members of FlyerTalk and that no further restrictions be adopted at this time"
(3) then a vote to rescind the second vote

While I can agree that it will be nice to have the voting etiquette laid out before anymore votes are taken, I sincerely hope that discussions will also focus on some solution to the original problem (the first point). I would seem rather silly to agree that something should be done, but then agree to do nothing about it.

Perhaps new ideas are being discussed already within TB?

As hard it is for me to say this... I'm with Dovster ;)

Allowing the separate "abstain" took that member out of the vote count all together without putting them in jeopardy of the "missed votes" clause.

With 9 members and one abstention, then yes, you still need 6 members to vote yes for a win

However, with 2 abstentions... the number would only need 5 because 5/7 > 2/3

3 abstentions would only need 4 of the remaining 6 votes to approve.

That's the only point I intended to make. One abstention out of nine votes makes no difference to the final result due to the mathematical quirk.

I concur that the regulations as presently written are counter-intuitive and place an even greater burden than the already required 2/3 majority to pass a motion. This should be clarified.

FWIW, current rules state:

So, it says that 2/3rds of the members participating in the vote must vote yes. If someone selects "Abstain" - they have participated, just neither voted in favor nor against.

It would appear that this overrides the 2005 vote in question as this more recent & these are the officially adopted guidelines.

I see nothing there as indicating that abstaining is participating.

Moreover, there is good reason why it should not be considered as such. TB regulations allow a member to be voted off if he misses three votes. It is seen as an indication that he is simply no longer interested in serving. In my experience, TB members have been loathe to miss even one vote.

There could well be valid reasons why two or more TB members feel the need to abstain. Perhaps they have personal conflict of interests. Perhaps they are uncertain of what is the best path to take on a particular issue and thus do not want to have their votes counted.

If you say that by abstaining they are voting, you are automatically counting theme as "nay" votes -- at least in practice. You have, in effect, removed their right to abstain.

Let's say that John has violated some rule which leads some TalkBoard members to feel that he should be removed from office. John believes that he should not participate in this vote. Of the remaining 8 members, 5 favor having John removed, 2 oppose it, and 1 -- a close friend of John, abstains. If John also abstains, and you see that as voting, his will be the deciding vote and it will keep him on TalkBoard.

On the other hand, if John and his friend abstain but it is not seen as voting, he will be removed from TalkBoard by a 5-2 margin.

What this in effect does is give John and his friend the ability to block his removal while giving the pretense that they were not involved in the decision.

Exactly.

This is precisely why I was careful with my "abstain" vote in this particular vote as I did not want it to be the deciding vote in favour or against the proposal. Once jackal was officially inducted as the 9th TalkBoard member, a single "abstain" vote is irrelevant.

However, if only 8 TalkBoard members were voting and 1 wished to abstain then there would be a difference between actually casting an "abstain" vote (6 "yes" votes still required to pass) versus simply choosing to abstain from voting (5 "yes" votes required to pass). The "abstain" vote has exactly the same value as a "no" vote in this case.

This is why the Guidelines should be amended to properly reflect the will of those voting, including those who wish to simply not pick a side.

I think this is a Mickey Mouse example. This is an internet discussion board and not the decision of a high court. I think everyone can defend himself or vote in his own favor in an online poll. I can manipulate everything the way I want, just a matter of using a statistic right.

And I see it as sufficient if someone participates in the voting process. Thats how it is handled and valued.

Then by all means make a motion to change the voting rules to spell out that abstaining is participating. I prefer that it not be considered participating, and the last time that this question was specifically addressed (in 2005) that is what TalkBoard decided, but you now have a very unclear situation.

Decide now, when no other motion is being voted on, and TalkBoard will not be in a position where members are upset with each other because one side did not get what it feels it should (be that passage or defeat of a measure).

Do not put it off until such a time as when you will know who or what this decision will help and who or what it will hurt.

And I agree with Dovster, Missy, and B747

The moon must be full somewhere.

par·tic·i·pate (pär-ts-pt)
v. par·tic·i·pat·ed, par·tic·i·pat·ing, par·tic·i·pates
v.intr.
1. To take part in something: participated in the festivities.
2. To share in something: If only I could participate in your good fortune.

***

When someone chooses to abstain, they have participated in the vote. The choices were Yes, No, or Abstain. In a similar example, if someone is asked to vote on whether they would prefer White, Wheat, or Neither for their sandwich, they'd be participating in the process by choosing one of the 3 options. It doesn't matter what the options are. It only matters whether they took part in the process.

I think the TalkBoard needs to decide how we want to count abstentions, then clarify the Guideline wording to make this decision unambiguous. I'm open to persuasion on what the decision itself should be, but the ambiguity has to go.

Taking out the dictionary helps define participate as it is used, but does not address the motion Dovster is relating to, which still seems to be in effect.

I think that TB should be grateful that this has been brought up during a vote where the outcome is not in question.

I also strongly encourage TB to support the intent of the 2005 motion. Abstaining as it stands is not a "NO" vote, but is a "NON-vote". Don't go backwards in time, we elect members to vote in FTs best interests. Steps should be kept in place to ensure participation in the course of TB duties is encouraged.

The motion was superceded by the guidelines that the TalkBoard subsequently adopted.

The TalkBoard guidelines explain how a motion passes. Currently it's true that an abstention has the effect of a 'no' -- because 2/3rds of those who cast a ballot have to do so in favor of a motion for it to pass. An abstention is a ballot that's not cast in favor.

Personally I favor this approach, I believe that a motion should be able to garner substantial actual support from members of the TalkBoard before considering it a recommendation on behalf of the membership, we shouldn't be changing things willy nilly or when calls are close, only when it's overwhelmingly clear to 2/3rds of folks casting a ballot that we ought to omve forward in a proposed direction.

And that's what was enshrined in the TalkBoard Guidelines.

Does anyone else see the irony that there's now a heated debate on what "abstain" & "is" is on a motion that had previously passed & the only reason it was up at all was due to a technicality, and then due to the technicality it allowed TB members to change their previous votes, and now everyone's duking it out on what abstain means????

You all can go back to the drawing board (no offense to koko). I'm just popping popcorn, getting a soda, and settling back into a comfy chair to watch. Well, given this is FT, maybe it should be a pour a glass or bottle of wine ;)

Cheers.

The guidelines were adopted in whole by successful motion of the TalkBoard.


TalkBoard procedure isn't rule by majority vote. Rather there's a requirement that a supermajority must be in favor of something in order to pass.

So the rule that's in place is that 2/3rds of those casting a ballot must do so in favor of a motion or the motion fails.

This approximates the idea that 2/3rds of the TalkBoard must be actively in favor of a motion for it to pass, but contemplates that someone could be away and simply unable to cast a ballot and if they do not show up for a vote that doesn't stand in the way of a motion's passage (someone who simply no shows is removed from the denominator, but of those remaining 2/3rds must still be explicitly in favor).

Actually since gleff posted while I was writing my prior post, to me "Ms Reg FT Member", my thoughts...if Abstain is considered a "No" vote, then Abstain should be eliminated & votes should be Yes, No, & No Vote.

And do TB members REALLY want to be pontificating about 'willy-nilly changes' when TB actually passed the motion the last time & it was only due to a technicality that you got to suddenly review it & then TB folk who voted for it before suddenly got to change their votes? I mean seriously? You really want to go there? Talk about 'willy-nilly'. :rolleyes:

While I have a lot of respect for TB, let's just say for me this entire situation was not your finest hour.

Cheers.

As observed earlier in the thread, registering an 'abstention' is effectively just declaring yourself "Present" for the vote and not non-participating (so that your TalkBoard membership isn't in jeopardy) while not voting to actively support a motion.

As I've said, a motion doesn't just need to 'pass' it needs to garner the active support of 2/4rds of the TalkBoard. And someone might want to say they're not ignoring things, they may not be actively opposed, but not actually willing to support something for passage.

It's an option we've always had.

I suspect folks don't like it when a different voting procedure might have allowed their preferred policy option to be recommended. But our voting procedures ought not be driven by a single issue or outcome. These things are very much designed to be status quo-biased, that there needs to be overwhelming support before tinkering with Flyertalk.

The status-quo at the time that the Guidelines were passed was the 2005 vote. Nothing in the Guidelines gives the definition of "participating", much less states that it has been changed to include abstaining.

I am not a fortune teller, and I have no idea of what the issue will be, but it is unquestionable that TB is building a situation where someday a very volatile issue is going to be decided by a vote in which abstentions play a part. Now is the time to get the matter officially decided -- and that would require any change to the 2005 motion to be passed by 2/3rds of those voting. If a new motion to that effect does not pass, the 2005 one would remain in effect.

As cblaisd and I have both posted in this thread, it reminds me of something which happened earlier.

I had to cut my first term on TalkBoard short because of health issues. Several months earlier, we had voted to fill a vacancy on TalkBoard with the first runner up in the most recent election (as opposed to the first runner up in the election during which the member who is leaving was selected).

At the time, of course, we had no idea of who this would help and who this would hurt.

When I resigned, TB announced that Doc would be replacing me. cblaisd questioned this as FewMiles had been the runner up in the voting in the election which put me in office.

This could have resulted in very hard feelings but it was defused by the fact that we were able to point to the motion, passed months earlier, and without personalities being involved, which unambiguously stated how a replacement would be appointed.

That is the proper way to handle things -- by clearly spelled out rules, not by what any one person, including the TalkBoard president, decides.

That's simply not correct. All previous votes concerning TB procedural matters were overridden by the adoption of new guidelines which fully spelled out all procedural matters for TB. By definition, the adoption of new guidelines superceded all previous motions - although many previous motions were enshrined and condensed into those guidelines. It actually says in the preamble to the guidelines (and guidelines which were passed by 2/3rds of TB members)
You keep quoting a rule which is utterly meaningless as though it means something. The current way of determining votes is by reference to the guidelines passed in 2008, and no other rules, as established by the fact that the guidelines state they supercede all and any other rules. Therefore, the only rule which applies is that quoted above - that votes are determined by a 2/3rd majority of those participating.

I suspect we can argue about participating until the cows come home. My recollection is that we wanted a distinction between those who did vote, but who abstained, and those who failed to vote, as otherwise a failure to vote becomes an automatic no - whereas someone who abstains has not shown agreement with the proposal, so their vote does need to be counted in the total.