World Assembly Suggestion - "Abstain"

[Motuka]

What do we do if more people abstain than vote yes or no? <.<

As I see it, all Abstain votes would simply be ignored. The tally of yes vs. no votes would decide whether the resolution at vote passes. The point of the Abstain is to allow people to 'turn off' the annoying "(1)" reminder which is pointless if one has already decided to purposely not cast a vote, and to enter a "voted Abstain" in their National Happenings.

Ballotonia

If the majority of the WA abstains, the resolution is clearly not seen as being worth the WA's time, and should not pass regardless of how many yes or no votes it has. (I don't think the (1) reminder is annoying, really.)

[Ballotonia]

If the majority of the WA abstains, the resolution is clearly not seen as being worth the WA's time, and should not pass regardless of how many yes or no votes it has. (I don't think the (1) reminder is annoying, really.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

Your suggestion would be best called a blank vote. It's common to not pass legislation when there isn't a majority in favor, with blank votes counted as votes against. Abstain votes still only count towards quorum.

Let's not over complicate this suggestion, since the point is to get rid of the "(1)" without voting yes or no. Note there's also no such thing as quorum on the WA floor, so that distinction is meaningless as well.

Ballotonia

[Euroslavia]

Considering not all active WA members read the forums...

Hence the second part of that sentence.

And my statement applies to your second part of the sentence. Honestly, if you expect that someone should have to check the forums and the RMB just to see an individual's stance in the event of a nation choosing to abstain, that's a bit too much.

[St George of England]

Hence the second part of that sentence.

And my statement applies to your second part of the sentence. Honestly, if you expect that someone should have to check the forums and the RMB just to see an individual's stance in the event of a nation choosing to abstain, that's a bit too much.

If a delegate can't take the time to state, either on the forums or their rmb, their position on a proposal then perhaps they shouldn't be delegates.

[Glen-Rhodes]

If the majority of the WA abstains, the resolution is clearly not seen as being worth the WA's time, and should not pass regardless of how many yes or no votes it has. (I don't think the (1) reminder is annoying, really.)

There are over 13,000 WA members. Typically less than a few thousand people actually vote on resolutions.

Note that looking at the for/against numbers does not give the amount of people who actually voted. Those numbers are inflated by delegate votes.

[Jasarite]

I,also,would appreciate it if I were able to abstain.

[[violet]]

Okay, it's going on the would-be-good pile.

[Euroslavia]

And my statement applies to your second part of the sentence. Honestly, if you expect that someone should have to check the forums and the RMB just to see an individual's stance in the event of a nation choosing to abstain, that's a bit too much.

If a delegate can't take the time to state, either on the forums or their rmb, their position on a proposal then perhaps they shouldn't be delegates.

That makes no sense whatsoever considering, as I said before, a lot of WA members do not read the WA forums (and if they did, you really think they should be expected to wade through pages and pages of posts, only to hope to find someone's stance on a proposal?) and some don't even pay attention to their own RMB (again, should they have to shift back repeatedly on their region's past messages, in hopes if finding an 'abstain' post?). I'm not even sure how you can put both parts of your sentence together.

[Unibotian WA Mission]

Okay, it's going on the would-be-good pile.

And now it is on the Big List as well.

[St George of England]

If a delegate can't take the time to state, either on the forums or their rmb, their position on a proposal then perhaps they shouldn't be delegates.

That makes no sense whatsoever considering, as I said before, a lot of WA members do not read the WA forums (and if they did, you really think they should be expected to wade through pages and pages of posts, only to hope to find someone's stance on a proposal?) and some don't even pay attention to their own RMB (again, should they have to shift back repeatedly on their region's past messages, in hopes if finding an 'abstain' post?). I'm not even sure how you can put both parts of your sentence together.

I'm unsure as to whether you're forgetting that, when you go to vote on a proposal, it tells you how (or not at all) your delegate has voted or whether you're intentionally not mentioning it.

I see no point in adding an abstain button because there's ample enough opportunities for delegates and members alike to decide not to vote and to state as such.

[Euroslavia]

That makes no sense whatsoever considering, as I said before, a lot of WA members do not read the WA forums (and if they did, you really think they should be expected to wade through pages and pages of posts, only to hope to find someone's stance on a proposal?) and some don't even pay attention to their own RMB (again, should they have to shift back repeatedly on their region's past messages, in hopes if finding an 'abstain' post?). I'm not even sure how you can put both parts of your sentence together.

I'm unsure as to whether you're forgetting that, when you go to vote on a proposal, it tells you how (or not at all) your delegate has voted or whether you're intentionally not mentioning it.

I see no point in adding an abstain button because there's ample enough opportunities for delegates and members alike to decide not to vote and to state as such.

There's a large difference between abstaining and not voting yet, hence the desire to clarify.

[Bundabunda]

If a delegate can't take the time to state, either on the forums or their rmb, their position on a proposal then perhaps they shouldn't be delegates.

That makes no sense whatsoever considering, as I said before, a lot of WA members do not read the WA forums (and if they did, you really think they should be expected to wade through pages and pages of posts, only to hope to find someone's stance on a proposal?) and some don't even pay attention to their own RMB (again, should they have to shift back repeatedly on their region's past messages, in hopes if finding an 'abstain' post?). I'm not even sure how you can put both parts of your sentence together.

What would happen if the majority of the votes were abstain?

[Flibbleites]

That makes no sense whatsoever considering, as I said before, a lot of WA members do not read the WA forums (and if they did, you really think they should be expected to wade through pages and pages of posts, only to hope to find someone's stance on a proposal?) and some don't even pay attention to their own RMB (again, should they have to shift back repeatedly on their region's past messages, in hopes if finding an 'abstain' post?). I'm not even sure how you can put both parts of your sentence together.

What would happen if the majority of the votes were abstain?

Most likely, the exact same thing that would happen if the majority of people don't vote, which ever side out of FOR and AGAINST has more votes wins.

[Omigodtheykilledkenny]

It looks like this is on the way toward being implemented. Which for the record is a very bad idea, and for once Sedgistan is right: this would not only enable, but encourage people not to vote yes or no. Not all WA members are the incredibly active and informed WA participants like mousey who would occasionally like to abstain on behalf of her region; most couldn't care less or don't know enough about GA/SC issues to make an informed decision. Meaning resolutions could actually pass by a minority vote. 3,000 "yeses" versus 1,000 "noes" and 4,500 abstentions. I could definitely see that happening. It's a nice thought, of course, but we shouldn't be implementing every idea that comes to mind just because it might be "nice."

If it were only implemented for delegates, since their regionmates have a right to know if their delegate has decided not to vote on a resolution, it would probably be fine. But opening the veritable floodgates for everyone to basically abdicate their responsibility as voters would severely depress turnout.

[Knootoss]

Kenny: So if that vote accurately reflects the mood of WA members... why is it a bad thing?

[Sanctaria]

Kenny: So if that vote accurately reflects the mood of WA members... why is it a bad thing?

This ^.

I'd use an Abstain vote. I'm not sure how often, but I'd definitely use it.

[Unibot II]

It looks like this is on the way toward being implemented. Which for the record is a very bad idea, and for once Sedgistan is right: this would not only enable, but encourage people not to vote yes or no. Not all WA members are the incredibly active and informed WA participants like mousey who would occasionally like to abstain on behalf of her region; most couldn't care less or don't know enough about GA/SC issues to make an informed decision. Meaning resolutions could actually pass by a minority vote. 3,000 "yeses" versus 1,000 "noes" and 4,500 abstentions. I could definitely see that happening. It's a nice thought, of course, but we shouldn't be implementing every idea that comes to mind just because it might be "nice."

If it were only implemented for delegates, since their regionmates have a right to know if their delegate has decided not to vote on a resolution, it would probably be fine. But opening the veritable floodgates for everyone to basically abdicate their responsibility as voters would severely depress turnout.

But it's not passing with a minority of the voting members, it's passing with the voting majority. Abstainers aren't voting members, that's the point of abstaining (def: "refrain from voting"). We already have abstainers... a lot of them in fact... only about 30% of member-nations bothered to vote with "Commend Crazy Girl".. yet we don't say that every WA Resolution has been passed with only a minority, because that's not true.. those who don't vote aren't a part of either the minority or the majority, they're abstaining from the entire process. Recognizing the process will allow us to differentiate between who is still observing the WA, but chose to abstain, and those that simply aren't paying attention to the WA at all.

[Motuka]

If the majority of the WA abstains, the resolution is clearly not seen as being worth the WA's time, and should not pass regardless of how many yes or no votes it has. (I don't think the (1) reminder is annoying, really.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention

Your suggestion would be best called a blank vote. It's common to not pass legislation when there isn't a majority in favor, with blank votes counted as votes against. Abstain votes still only count towards quorum.

Let's not over complicate this suggestion, since the point is to get rid of the "(1)" without voting yes or no. Note there's also no such thing as quorum on the WA floor, so that distinction is meaningless as well.

Ballotonia

I don't see that as working too well. It's sort of like putting "None of the above" on the ballot in national elections -- if "None of the above" wins the election, people clearly don't want any of the candidates.

If abstentions gain a majority, that means neither passing the resolution nor letting it fail would be accurate to express the sentiments of WA members. Perhaps it's something they don't view as a matter for international regulation, or whatever. But I'm pretty sure something should happen if "abstain" has the majority. Otherwise, well... I agree with OMG.

I think my concept of abstention is somewhat different from yours, though. You view abstention as the equivalent of not voting -- which people can do already, simply by... well... not voting -- whereas I view it more as a null vote: you are voting, but you don't wish to vote yes or no. Those who are just too apathetic to vote on WA resolutions can simply not vote.

[Mousebumples]

If it were only implemented for delegates, since their regionmates have a right to know if their delegate has decided not to vote on a resolution, it would probably be fine. But opening the veritable floodgates for everyone to basically abdicate their responsibility as voters would severely depress turnout.

I don't know if that "permutation" could make this more complicated to code, but that would work for me.

After all, the main reason I want to be able to abstain is because I'm the the WA Delegate for my region - as Kenny mentioned in a part of his post that I've snipped away. I don't know that I'd abstain that often, but I'd like to have the option. Further, from what I recall, the way a WA delegate votes is passed along to the member of their (my) region. Therefore, instead of having the WA vote page read, "Your region's WA delegate, Mousebumples, has not voted on this proposal." it would say something like, "Your region's WA delegate, Mousebumples, has abstained from voting on this proposal."

Again, I understand that voting Yay/Nay and withdrawing my vote will indicate an abstention on my National Happenings. However, that's been moving off the main page pretty quick with all of the other "stuff" that shows up on there (when I approve proposals, when I endorse or am endorsed, when I make issue decisions, when I get a new trophy, etc.) ... I'd mainly like my "abstention" to be noted on the main voting page for my regionmates.

(Side note: I've been WA delegate for almost 7 years now. That statement that I mentioned above is what I recall / have heard from others. If I'm way off, am remembering that wrong, or if the game coding's been changed ... whoops?)

[The Most Glorious Hack]

It looks like this is on the way toward being implemented.

I wouldn't read that much into the "would-be-good" pile. The telegram overhaul has been in that pile for... what? Two years now?

[[violet]]

TG overhaul would be AWESOME. But it's a lot of work.

[Sanctaria]

TG overhaul would be AWESOME. But it's a lot of work.

And adding an Abstain button?

[Elondira]

Dear All,

I had initially thought this to be a proposal for the WA GA, but have been advised to post this in this technical Forum. I shall leave the style of the Resolution below, but in essence I belief that having an abstain option on the voting in the GA and the SC would increase a fairer voting as well as stop the random voting that sometimes takes place, as well as give more possibility for member states to show indifference to a certain motion without leaving it 'undecided'.

I would be excited to hear any feedback and thoughts.

Best,

Elondira.
---

EXPRESSING concern of the current Yes/No voting system to a given resolution.

REITERATING the importance of democratic discussion and the making of free choice within the General Assembly of the WA.

TAKING NOTE of the member states who wish not to make a choice may not express this within the current model.

RECOGNISING the need for member states to abstain from voting in a particular resolution in order to:
express ambivalence,
express mild disapproval or protest which does not rise to opposition of the given measure,
refrain from making a decision that may be in opposition to popular political sentiment.

FURTHER RECOGNISING that member states may wish to abstain a given measure if they feel that it does not have bearing on their State.

PROMOTING a more active and democratic dialogue within the WA.

ENCOURAGING the participation of all member states in the voting of given measures.

DEMANDS the establishing of a ‘Abstain’ vote when voting within the General Assembly WA.
RECOGNISES that such measure may take time to implement, but;
URGES this measure to be functional within 60 days of the passing of this measure.
STIPULATES that abstention does not block a measure.
FURTHER STIPULATES that if the majority of members of the WA General Assembly abstain on a measure, that given measure fails.
DEMANDS that abstained votes statistics are feature along side with Yes/No votes in any publication or other information distribution with the WA.
ENCOURAGES all member states to vote to the best of their conscience and knowledge.

-----

[Sedgistan]

Mod note: Elondira's post merged with existing topic on the same matter.

[Farnhamia]

How about it? Sometimes I really don't care if Abracadabrastan is a commendable nation or region, but I would like the "World Assembly (1)" think to go away. I usually vote no on issues like that, but an "Abstain" or "Present" option would be nice.