[Discussion] Voting majorities

[Zaia]

Hmm, 16 vote to ban, and 10 vote to title. How many are left to still vote?

[Edi]

If all Senators and all mods were to vote, minus DW and Rob Wilson, we'd have 24 more votes to go. That's enough to tip the balance, so let's leave it be for a while yet.

Edi

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Honestly that probably makes this the first truly contested ban poll we've done since the implementaiton of the senate structure.

Not really. 61% is a definite majority and is a super-majority, if one makes a super-majority over 60% And the poll has been up for almost a week now. I suspect that most everybody who wanted to vote on this matter has already done so. So I'm all for forwarding this matter to the next available and willing admin to do their thing with it.

<ADDENDUM>

This might make an interesting point of discussion. Since banning by the Senate probably isn't something that ought to be done likely, should we establish some sort of hard and fast guideline on what percentage of voters must vote for a ban for that ban to recieve our official blessing?

[RedImperator]

It seems like we've definitely got a ban here. I'd take care of it myself, but for some reason my promotion hasn't gone through yet.

[Zaia]

I don't know....18-11 isn't even a 2/3 majority and seems like a pretty close vote to me.

[Lagmonster]

I don't know....18-11 isn't even a 2/3 majority and seems like a pretty close vote to me.

Do we have a time limit on voting, beyond which senators are considered absent for the vote?

At that, do we have a rule which explains how close a vote can be before it is considered even, or do we side with the winner even in a 49-51 split?

[Ghost Rider]

I don't know....18-11 isn't even a 2/3 majority and seems like a pretty close vote to me.

Do we have a time limit on voting, beyond which senators are considered absent for the vote?

At that, do we have a rule which explains how close a vote can be before it is considered even, or do we side with the winner even in a 49-51 split?

No real time limit, except what we figure to be good sense. I'd say on the level of a week, beyond which it becomes redundant.

As for tie-breakers, in cases of bannings I leave that to Mike should it ever happen. If he feels it's a ban, then so, if not...same deal.

As for majority...if it's 51-49, then the vote swings to the majority or voting is absolutely pointless. Saying it should be supermajority is a slippery slope because then what do we define as that number, 60%, 70%, 80%?

[RedImperator]

I don't know....18-11 isn't even a 2/3 majority and seems like a pretty close vote to me.

We've still got a supermajority, and munky isn't getting any less useless.

[Zaia]

Well, however we decide to define a majority, we need to do so now. I wasn't thinking that a 51-49 vote would ever decide anything, since there's nothing requiring every member to vote here.

For whatever reason, I had it in my head that we needed a definitive majority to pass motions and things, so it literally gave me a jolt when Red said it was clearly a banning. But yeah, I'm not sure why I had that in my head, but I did.

[Capsaicin]

Split from munky99999's ban poll in order to continue this discussion.

[Lagmonster]

Some of it has to do with how the administration handles a Senate vote, as in whether each individual Senator's vote counts in administrative decisions, or whether the Senate's role is to arrive at a decision, and then pass that on to the administration as a collective vote (to be counted alongside the vote of each admin).

[Coyote]

How would the categories be broken down? We typically deal with:

Removal of troll/offensive member
Titling/removing priviledges
Changing/adding a board policy or rule
Adding new Senator

Which of these would need simple majorities; which would need a supermajority?

... we take it in turn to act as a sort of executive officer for a week. But all the decisions of that officer have to be ratified by a simple majority in the case of purely internal matters, or by a 2/3 majority in the case of external affairs...

[Surlethe]

How would the categories be broken down? We typically deal with:

Removal of troll/offensive member
Titling/removing priviledges
Changing/adding a board policy or rule
Adding new Senator

I would think that since removal of a member is a serious matter, we should require at least 60% of the votes (supermajority) to execute; meanwhile, titling or removing privileges should only require a simple majority (in the absence of a supermajority to ban); changing or adding a board policy or rule would make sense as a simple majority; and, I think adding a new Senator, since we may often deal with multiple candidates, should be a simple plurality of the vote.

We should also establish a quorum before we end a vote, to make sure that the vote is fairly representative of the Senate while not forcing all Senators to vote.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

How would the categories be broken down? We typically deal with:

Removal of troll/offensive member
Titling/removing priviledges
Changing/adding a board policy or rule
Adding new Senator

I would think that since removal of a member is a serious matter, we should require at least 60% of the votes (supermajority) to execute; meanwhile, titling or removing privileges should only require a simple majority (in the absence of a supermajority to ban); changing or adding a board policy or rule would make sense as a simple majority; and, I think adding a new Senator, since we may often deal with multiple candidates, should be a simple plurality of the vote.

We should also establish a quorum before we end a vote, to make sure that the vote is fairly representative of the Senate while not forcing all Senators to vote.

I would say that bannings, changing/adding board policy, and adding user groups require a supermajority (I like the 60% figure myself.) But adding/removing a title and adding Senators should just require the simple majority, or the plurality you mentioned above.

[RedImperator]

I like requiring a supermajority for a ban because I don't ever want to be in a position where we have to consider unbanning someone. I can see us having a real tight vote, an administrator acts maybe a day too early, and then enough senators to tip the balance complain they didn't get a chance to vote. Then the banned member has grounds for appeal. I feel that one of the reasons this board works is because banning is a real, permanant punishment; I don't want anyone ever getting the idea you can weasel your way back in.

[Zaia]

For the record, my idea of a majority was 2/3 of the vote, not 60%.

[Coyote]

If we vote to ban a member, but don't have a supermajority, do we automatically default to a title and loss of sig/av priviledges without need to vote?

[Surlethe]

I would think we could count votes to punish (i.e., ban or revocation of privileges) versus votes to do nothing/warn and proceed from there, Coyote.

---

What should constitute a quorum to declare that enough of the Senate has weighed in on a particular issue?

[CmdrWilkens]

I would think it should be roughly this:

Category A:
Board Policies/Senate Rules/Bannings/Usergroups: 60% of votes given

Category B
Titling/Lesser Offenses/Resolutions:50% +1 of votes given
Election to the Senate: Plurality of votes given

A quorum of 40% would be required for the Category B votes and a quorum of 50% on Category A votes amongst eligible voters (which obviously is now redefined as all Senators and Governors excepting the Chancellor). We might then need to add a provision that tie-breaking votes should only be cast in Category B elections and Category A should default to a negative.

[RedImperator]

CmdrWilken's proposal makes a good deal of sense. It has my backing. I don't think a 66% supermajority is necessary. If 60% of the senate agrees on something, that should be enough.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

CmdrWilken's proposal makes a good deal of sense. It has my backing. I don't think a 66% supermajority is necessary. If 60% of the senate agrees on something, that should be enough.

I agree wholeheartedly. So I'll throw my support behind his proposal as well.

[Broomstick]

Um... would it help if I got my ass over to the other thread and voted?

I haven't voted on Munky because I haven't encountered him in any threads I've been in (or at least not that I can recall) and I didn't think I should be voting thumbs up/down on an issue I knew nothing about. Given an insane work week last week I didn't have the Mon-Fri time to research the issue, and I was out of state/off planet most of the weekend.

Which makes me wonder if perhaps we need an "abstain" choice sometimes for folks who have reasons to not vote, but don't want to hold up decision making...?

EDIT

Nevermind, I see I missed the vote. On the other hand, I'll leave my question about potential uses of "abstain" on the table.

[CmdrWilkens]

I think we should add an abstain option to every poll so that such votes could be added to the total recieved so as to make quorum. These obviously would not count in the affirmative towards any of the majority/pluralities needed for votes.

[Stuart Mackey]

I would think it should be roughly this:

snip

Agreed. Its nice and simple to administer as well.

[CmdrWilkens]

I'd like to let the discussion run a couple more days but say about Friday or so I'm gonna put my proposal forward along with the provision on abstaining. So yeah here I go with working out procedures and rules, two votes inside of a month: its the stuff I'm good at .