No. J-M overstated the case.

If 6 members vote in favor a motion, an abstention will not kill it.

Also, if 2 members abstain, they will not be killing the motion. (As you know, a motion requires 2/3rds of those members voting to be approved. If 2 abstain, 5 members voting in favor will give it 71%.)

Indeed, you could have 8 members abstaining and a single "yes" vote would be sufficient to have it approved.

In this instance, however, it was the deciding factor in killing the motion and was just as effective in doing so as a "no" vote.

Five members voted in favor; three members voted against (and all of those votes were quite predictable from the very beginning). This gave the motion a 62.5% approval, which is not sufficient to pass it.

Exactly. Well put.

I have no interest in their "representing" me and my views. If that was their function, it would be easier and much more efficient to have a town-hall approach to everything. Why do you need "representation" if the means exist to poll every member?

No, I expect them to use their good judgment.

Luckily, as evidenced here, many of them do.

cblaisd and I are in complete agreement on this point.

In this case, I believe that 8 of the 9 TB members used their best judgment (even though I only agree with the three who voted against this motion).

I will withold any decision concerning whether Jenbel used her best judgment until she explains why she voted for (and, indeed, seconded) the motion in late November but this time cast the (abstention) vote which doomed it.

And the full moon isn't until later in the month! :p

I'm no mathematician (so feel free to correct me) but my own (generic, not necessarily related to this matter, but generic) presumption is that a TB member has two options if he or she does not want to vote yes or no on a matter for whatever reason.

If a TB member votes to abstain that can decrease the likelihood of passage but will never increase the likelihood so does have an impact.

If a TB member refrains from voting at all that may mathematically increase likelihood of passage in some circumstances but at least it leaves the resolution of the matter to those who feel strongly enough to vote either yes or no.

That's why I quoted Jack Johnson above. Voting 'maybe' pretty much always means no as opposed to remaining silent on the matter.

I share this concern and raised it in the private TB forum. Here is what I posted in the private TB forum:

I sincerely want to understand how when you voted FOR this forum before that was in the best interests of FT and yet when you are voting NOT FOR this forum now it is also in the best interests of FT.

The only reason I ask is because if it was the process that changed your vote (either my having made the motion or my having made the motion in the manner that I did) I'd like to know that as it will change the way I approach the TB so long as you serve with me.

If, otoh, you changed your position for new exigent factors such as Randy's recently stated position on the forum or because the vote before was 'easy' when one knew the forum's failure was a foregone conclusion (whereas a vote this time would be the vote to enact the forum) that might alleviate some potential guilt on my part for having unwittingly have played a hand in your flip-flop on this issue.

That said, I understand your hesitancy about stating your motivations here [minor redaction for TOS purposes] and dont mind at all finding out about them along with all other posters.

Bottom line: if at some point you decide that you can again support this forum for whatever reason, your re-reconsideration will have my utter support since, as I said, I support this forum with neither agenda nor reservation!

Wrong.

Both abstaining and not showing up for a vote have the same effect on a motion.

There are only two differences between abstaining and not participating.

1. Once all members have voted (or announced that they are abstaining) the results can be announced.

2. If a TB member misses three consecutive votes, that is grounds for removal. If he abstains on three consecutive votes, it is not.

If Jenbel had not participated at all in the ballot the results would still have been 5 in favor, 3 against -- a 62.5% approval, which is insufficient for the motion to pass.

That is not what I understand. As far as I know, if all three abstain and one were to vote "no" the vote would pass 5-1 (as it would have 83% in favor).

This is exactly why I'm no mathematician! :)

Take a look at this post, which shows what happens with both abstentions and not participating at all.



This is what I was saying: an abstention and not voting have the same impact. In this case, only three TB members voted in favor, and one against, but the motion was passed because 75% of those who actually voted were in favor.

So Spiff, my math is actually correct? If a TB member votes to abstain that can decrease the likelihood of passage but will never increase the likelihood so does have an impact?

Sorry, multitasking error. :o

You are correct.

If 2 vote yes and 1 votes no while 6 abstain, the motion passes 2-1.

Had the 6 voted no, the motion would have failed.

In this case, abstaining instead of voting no actually increased the likelihood of passage.

That is true in theory but not (in this case) in practice.

Jenbel's abstention -- as opposed to voting "no" -- would only have helped it pass if you, bhatnasx or gleff, all of whom voted "no" last time, suddenly (and partly) changed his mind and either abstained or didn't participate in the vote at all.

In that case, it would have passed 5-2-2.

There was really no reason at all, in the short period between the votes, for any of you three to have changed your minds. I suspect, however, that if one of you had, it would have been to a "yes" -- meaning that the vote would have passed with Jenbel either abstaining or voting against it.

But I'm not comparing abstaining to voting no. Clearly that increases the likelihood of passage. Just as, in this case, changing a vote from yes to abstain clearly decreases the likelihood of passage.

My question was in relation to voting to abstain vs not voting at all. And let me pose it in the form of a question:

Given the universe of vote total possibilities, does voting to abstain increase or decrease or not change the overall likelihood of passage vs. not voting at all?

Dov says 'does not change at all.' That the rule 'a motion requires 2/3rds of those members voting to be approved' means that an affirmative vote to abstain does not count toward the 2/3 and that 5-2-2 means that the motion carries 5 out of 7= greater than 2/3.

OR do votes to abstain count, ie, 5-2-2 means that 5 out of 9 voting yes means 5/9 is less than 2/3 means the motion fails.

Looks like you and Dov agree. It is the former.


Also, will this be on the final!? :D