Talkboard Resolution Vote Policies
 

It is clear to this poster based upon the results of the last two TalkBoard decisions that perhaps the voting rules need to be evaluated. It is my understanding from the off-topic discussion (which has been deleted) on the Sept. 9 thread that a 2/3 majority is needed to pass a TalkBoard resolution. Let us then examine the two latest votes in this light:

1. Men's Forum
The vote to establish a Men's Forum was 5 in favor and 4 against. Although this was a simple majority, it was not a 2/3 majority (which would require 6 in favor). Thus, the Men's Forum resolution is considered failed. (Note that this is not an indication that this poster is in favor of the Men's Forum or that I feel this resolution should be considered successful.)

2. Sept. 9 Election Cut-off
The vote on this resolution was 3 in favor, 1 against, 3 abstaining, and 2 not voting. This resolution was considered passed, as of the 4 yes/no votes, 3 were in favor. My question is this: What of the abstentions? What is the difference between abstaining and not registering a vote at all? According to this vote, there is no difference.

This bystander fails to understand how the TalkBoard considers the Sept. 9 resolution to be successful. A simple majority of the TalkBoard failed to vote for or against it, and based upon the TalkBoard Member comments on the thread devoted to this vote, at least 4 of the members either did not support the resolution or felt it was not within the TalkBoard's purview. How can any reasonable individual look at this 3-1-3-2 vote and declare this resolution successful?

It is interesting that a resolution that achieved a simple majority of the Talkboard membership fails, and yet a resolution in which a simple majority of the TalkBoard membership fails to even vote yea or nay passes...

My take.... and only my view:

1. There is no quorum requirement so there is no minimum requirement of votes cast for votes to be "legal". I am OK with this... those who have an opinion determine the course of votes, not those that sit on the sidelines.

2. Normal convention is that "Abstentions" and "Not Voting" should not impact the outcome of a vote. As such, we do not count these in vote totals... otherwise, as happened early in the Talkboard, "Abstaining" or "Not Voting" was effectively a "NO" vote without actually having to go on the record.

3. I personally feel there should be very few "Abstentions". To me, not having an informed opinion or feeling the motion is wrong is not a reason for an abstention... to me, an abstention should only occur if you have a conflict of interest. (ie. the Talkboard took a vote on whether or not the Secret Santa project should be allowed to continue - I would probably abstain as I am the coordinator of that project) - note that this is my personal view of Abstentions. I personally view some of the reasons people give for an "Abstention" are actually "No" votes... but I do not cast their votes and have to respect their decision.

4. When "Not Voting" in more than one or two votes, I believe that is a different issue. I have missed one vote in all my time (and that was accidental as I thought I had voted). I believe we all at least have an obligation to participate in discussions and cast a vote on the issues. With the exception of technical issues or being out of pocket totally, we can at least do that for the people who voted us in.

5. I do believe there is a difference between "Abstaining" and "Not Voting". At least, an abstention shows that the person at least was aware of the vote and discussion... where not voting leaves it up to the imagination.

I am personally disappointed in how both the votes you referenced went as I was on the "losing" side both times. However, I have to accept them as the votes are counted within the rules of the Talkboard.

William

Abstaining means you are present for the vote, but for one reason or another do not wish to vote yes or no. However, you indicate that you are there and, by abstaining, you have participated in the vote for purposes of not being sanctioned (if a TalkBoard member misses too many votes, the other TalkBoard members could decided to vote on dismissing this TalkBoard member for that reason).

That is one practical difference between abstaining and not registering a vote at all.

It's the same in many legislative bodies around the world, and I am pretty sure that there might be some reasonable individuals in those as well. If those who abstained had not wanted the motion to pass, they could have voted against.

I think there was no impropriety in how the votes were decided.

I think that Dovster posted that Talkboard's policy is that motions pass if there are favorable votes from 2/3 of those voting on the motion. Even if only one person votes. IMO, makes no sense; new forum gets five favorable votes and fails. Voting rules get three favorable votes (all of one-third of the Talkboard) and passes.

We have not formally adopted Robert's Rules of Order and as such have no requirement for a voting quorum.

Our by-laws require a 2/3 majority for any motion to pass. That is what we have established.

Spiff, I wouldn't know Robert's Rules of Order if someone hit me with them, so I don't know what they have to do with this. :D

I agree that there's no need for a voting quorum when a legislative body doesn't actually "meet" in person - and all votes are open for a week or two of electronic polling.

In such cases, the typical default would be that a simple majority of the total body would be required (and sufficient, as well) to favorably report a motion. If this is what Robert's Rules provides as well - then that would be completely coincidental, since I've never read them (in a couple decades of serving on various boards of directors, I've never been elected Parlimentarian).

It just seems odd to some of us mortals that votes of 1-0 or 2-1 or even 3-1 are reported as sufficient to pass a motion (evidencing support by no more than one third of a nine member body) yet 5-4 and 5-3 are regarded as insufficient to pass a motion, despite both reflecting support by a majority of the nine member body.

Oh, well - it's clearly beyond my comprehension. :)

Carry on. :)

"What of the abstentions?"

You conveniently forget to mention it was clearly outlined to members that doc's planned YES vote was not able to be made due to FT techno problems on that day:

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=607253

It would not have altered the vote succeeding, but your post makes it appear there was minimal voting intent/execution by TB members which is not the case at all.

empedocles - There has never been any quorum for TB votes, and you will surely be aware that TB specifically voted (and it was clearly reported to all members) that abstain or non votes do not count in totals.

Seems a very simple policy for most to follow? Most members seemed to agree it was a great idea.

Here is that discussion from October 5, 2006, less than a year back (bolding mine):

http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=473865

Members such as cblaisd, CameraGuy, FewMiles and others all agreed this vote was a wonderful idea. :)

Many past and present TB members posted on this same public thread.

So sadly - no Black Helicopters in sight. ;)

Sorry, I'm not part of the black helicopter crowd. ;)

Basically, the circumstances in question seem to be a unique situation, that will probably never be repeated. And yes, I do know that unknown difficulties prevented doc from registering his vote, and you are right, I may not have posted this if it were 4 yea votes.

However, the fact remains, even though I understand and agree that the rules and procedures were followed, that the Election resolution garnered support from less than 50% of the TalkBoard, and there were a very high number of abstentions for a 9 member board, and yet TalkBoard saw no reason to reconsider this resolution.

Basically, what this tells me is that when I am on TalkBoard, all I need to do is hire someone to either unavoidably detain or cause technical difficulties for the other 8 members for a couple weeks, and then any resolution will pass or fail based solely upon my single vote... ;)

As I said before, I understand the policy in place, and the vote(s) in question are appropriately tallied and will stand. I have no problem with that. I'm just saying perhaps a policy that could allow a resolution with 1 yea, 0 nea, and 8 abstentions or non-votes to pass needs to be reconsidered.

Majority of what? Members? Votes? Yes or No Votes?

Please see post #10.

66.666% of Yes or No votes. :cool:

This is the only way to keep someone from using an absention vote as a pocket no vote. It's not ideal, as was shown in the Voter Eligibility Vote, but it is the safest way to ensure that anyone against a motion must vote no and not hide behind abstention.

That makes sense CG. thanks.

I agree :eek:.

Ut-oh. Is the Apocaplyse upon us? :D