Quorum

[DGDanforth]

> Josef has suggested that an (absolute) majority is sufficient to decide a vote*.

I tried to avoid the term 'absolute majority'.
I used the more precise formula 'MORE than 50%'.
Now the question is 50% of what?
The obvious answer is of ALL THE POSSIBLE VOTES, i.e. of a quorum of 100%
or however you call it. It does not give sense to use THE EXISTING VOTES.

There is no complicated mathematics behind it and there is no need to limit
the number of center members to an odd number.

It was intended as a simplification in cases where it does not
give sense to wait for more votes because the result will not be changed.

- Josef

Agreed.
My MeasureMajorityRule is an attempt to formalize that.
Yes, it is not necessary to restrict the number of members to an odd value.

[cfbsoftware]

[Abstain is simply not voting which counts as an against vote (not for).

No. Abstain means I neither want to vote for nor against. Effectively it is saying I will let the majority decide for me.

[DGDanforth]

[Abstain is simply not voting which counts as an against vote (not for).

No. Abstain means I neither want to vote for nor against. Effectively it is saying I will let the majority decide for me.

Chris,
Psychologically your comment is correct.
But functionally an abstain vote is a vote 'not for' the proposition.
It is only the 'for' votes that determine whether or not a motion is carried.
Currently with 11 voting members and using Ivan's rule of 80% of that number
rounded up to the next whole number that means that 9 or more votes must
be cast 'for' a measure (proposition, motion). If 3 members abstain then the
measure fails. That is equivalent to casting 3 votes 'against' the measure.

The information that there were abstainers can indeed be used to judge the knowledge
or desires of the voting members but, again, has no significance other than to limit
the number of 'for' votes.

Now we come to the crux of the matter. If 9 members abstain but two vote for the measure
does the measure carry? From your wording it would seem that the answer would be yes because
the majority of the members who voted, voted for the measure. That is not how I have been
interpreting Ivan's rule.

Everyone, please correct me if I am wrong.

-Doug

[ReneK]

IMHO, we need a difference between "I have not seen or not decided" and "I do not want to decide for one of the opinions". The latter is a vote to abstain.

In the current system I deem it illogical to use abstain as reducing the quorum. Rather it says "I support neither option".

If we want clarity though, we could have an option abstain, which reduces the quorum, and a "neither of the optiins" which does not reduxe the quorum.

To implement the latter, no change of rules is necessary, as it is the discretion of the chairman to formulate votes.

[Josef Templ]

I agree with Rene.
Not voting at all is different from selecting 'Abstain'.

Not voting may be caused by being on vacation etc.
It is a mistake to interpret 'not voting' in any way.
Because there may be cases where members are not able to vote
within the specified voting time and we don't want to leave decisions
to a small randomly selected subset of center members we have the quorum rule.

To vote for 'Abstain', if it is offered as an option,
means that "I don't care" or "I don't want to vote" for any other reason
(for example a nominated chair doesn't want to vote for himself),
but that vote IS COUNTED as a vote in order to reach the required quorum.
'Abstain' cannot be the result of a poll, i.e. even if the majority abstains,
the poll has a result.
'Abstain' cannot be interpreted as being against or in favour of a proposal.

It is left to the discretion of the chair to offer an option 'Abstain' or not
or to offer other options such as 'I don't like any of the alternatives'
or 'we need more discussion'. The meaningful options must be
decided case by case.
However, 'Abstain' turned out to be a useful option in most if not any cases,
so it might be considered a convention/rule to add it to the list of alternatives
for any poll.

If a poll has an ambiguous result, i.e. no majority for a single option,
the chair has to take measures to disambiguate the result.
For example the decision could be postponed to a later time and the poll could be repeated then,
there could be more discussions, there could be bilateral discussions between members, etc.
This must be decided case by case and is an important task of the chair.

- Josef

[DGDanforth]

(1) Let's say there is a vote but the number of voters does not reach the quorum number (9).
What is the result of the vote?

(2) Let's say the quorum is reached for a vote but every one abstains. What is the result of the vote?

With the MajorityRule a measure is passed only if 6 or more members vote for the measure.
That is clear and clean.
If members are on vacation then a measure may not pass because they did not vote (and it would need to be reconsidered).
If a large number of members abstain then the measure would not pass. Period. No ambiguity.

A quorum only says whether a vote is legitimate it doesn't specify whether a measure passes or not. That is a
different concept. Whereas with the MajorityRule one gets both aspects in one package. If 6 or more vote for a measure then the vote is legitimate AND the measure passes.

The usefulness of abstaining, as I see it, is to speed up the decision making process of whether a measure passes or not. If 6 people abstain the vote can be immediately stopped and the measure fails. One does not need to wait until the voting period has elapsed.

Don't forget that it is the majority which ends up making the decisions (with the MajorityRule).

[ReneK]

>Let's say there is a vote but the number of voters does not reach the quorum number (9).
Then the vote is still open until a quorum is reached.

>Let's say the quorum is reached for a vote but every one abstains. What is the result of the vote?
There is no decision made FOR the proposal. The vote is closed, but this topic, obviously, was not ready for voting.

[ReneK]

Now we come to the crux of the matter. If 9 members abstain but two vote for the measure
does the measure carry? From your wording it would seem that the answer would be yes because
the majority of the members who voted, voted for the measure. That is not how I have been
interpreting Ivan's rule.

Yes, this is how Ivan has interpreted the current rule. I disagree with the interpretation, though.

I disagree, because if someone thought that he could not support either of the options given, the only way to make this obvious was to not vote at all, which would lead to the chairman buggering the not voters with eMails, until they voted. They *had* to choose something they did not want to choose.

Thus, I personally understood "abstain" as a method to say, "I do not want this proposition to gain a quorum either way", not as "I do not care for the result".

[Josef Templ]

to be precise, closing a poll after reaching the quorum but before the end of the voting
period is a fundamental mistake unless the result is guaranteed to be 'stable'.
Why? If the 80% quorum is reached the missing votes still
may change the result, at least in some cases.

The simplest case where the result is stable before the end of the voting period
is when MORE THAN 50% of ALL MEMBERS have voted for the same option.
If we want to speed up the voting process, this would be a small step ahead.

This special case can of course be generalized to cover ALL stable situations.
The generalized "stable-result" rule would then be:
"The poll can be closed when the result is stable even if a quorum of 100% would be reached."
or in much simpler words:

"The poll can be closed if the leading option is ahead by more than the number of missing votes."

This latter formulation has the advantage that it gives some advice on how to do the counting.
There is no need to use terms like quorum, absolute majority, 50%, or division by 2.
I hope that there is no logical error in my generalization step and in the reformulation.
Originally I found the generalization too complicated, but with the latter formulation I start liking it.

So, if we want to speed up the voting process, this would be a big step ahead.

- Josef

[Josef Templ]

> Thus, I personally understood "abstain" as a method to say, "I do not want this proposition to gain a quorum either way", not as "I do not care for the result".

Rene, if we vote for the next chair, for example, the nominated person will most probably not vote for himself but choose 'Abstain'.
There is nothing negative about that and it does certainly not mean that he or she is against the proposal.
It only says that he or she doesn't want to vote but acknowledges that he or she has seen the poll
and leaves the decision to others. This vote counts for the quorum but not for the result.

When you don't see that there is a poll because you are away from the Internet you cannot vote 'Abstain'
because you don't know about the poll. This is the fundamental difference between not voting or voting for 'Abstain'.

If you think that the options are incomplete you post a message.
You should not express your protest by refusing to vote.

- Josef