January Membership Vote, Read this First

[CmdrWilkens]

Please be aware that Ace Pace has contacted me and indicated that he cannot, for reasons related to real life concerns, accept a post as Senator if so elected. Since the vote has already opened I am not going to re-set things but please be aware that Ace has removed himself from consideration.

[LadyTevar]

Since AcePace has dropped out of the running, I move that the current vote be closed and a new vote poll be created, with only those nominees who have received votes being listed.

[Simplicius]

Because Ace Pace is the second-most popular candidate by no small margin, I second the motion.

[Knife]

I disagree, as tired as I am of the bitching of the HoC, scrapping a vote now because of events happening after the fact is bad precedent. Sure, a lot of HoC are pissed over the amount of abstains right now, but what if a simular incident happens when a popular nominee is winning and we, as the Senate, invoke the same motion with this as precedent.

Let it ride, see where the vote turns out. If someone who 'dropped out' gets the vote, then accept their resignation and open the floor for the next round.

[Simplicius]

I can't imagine a reason why we would scrap a vote in which a popular candidate was winning without a good reason to do so, and if there is a good reason for a re-vote then the HoC really has no cause to bitch about it - nor would I expect them to, unless the re-vote involved disqualifying the popular candidate.

I'll admit the my second was initially prompted by a thought that it would be proper to re-vote if the outcome of the election might be altered by Ace's withdrawal. But even if that wouldn't happen, I still think the vote should be re-done so that any of us who voted for Ace get a chance to see their vote count. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't vote for him.

[Knife]

I can't imagine a reason why we would scrap a vote in which a popular candidate was winning without a good reason to do so, and if there is a good reason for a re-vote then the HoC really has no cause to bitch about it - nor would I expect them to, unless the re-vote involved disqualifying the popular candidate.

Why would we scrap this one? The winning vote is none of the one's dropping out of the vote? Scrapping the vote just sets bad precedent.

I'll admit the my second was initially prompted by a thought that it would be proper to re-vote if the outcome of the election might be altered by Ace's withdrawal. But even if that wouldn't happen, I still think the vote should be re-done so that any of us who voted for Ace get a chance to see their vote count. And in the spirit of full disclosure, I didn't vote for him.

Meh, if the vote continues as trending looks like, 'no one' wins and the floor is open for nominations next month. If, by some chance one of the one's who wish to not be elected in, do infact win, they can resign their post after the vote. I see no reason why at this point, the stated rules won't solve the problem encountered here. No need to scrap a vote this far into it, and set bad precedent.

[The Yosemite Bear]

Actually votes for Abstain/None of the above are the most popular.....

[CmdrWilkens]

Meh, if the vote continues as trending looks like, 'no one' wins and the floor is open for nominations next month. If, by some chance one of the one's who wish to not be elected in, do infact win, they can resign their post after the vote. I see no reason why at this point, the stated rules won't solve the problem encountered here. No need to scrap a vote this far into it, and set bad precedent.

Plurality wins and abstention does not count so whoever amongst the actual candidates has the greatest number of votes will win.

[Knife]

Meh, if the vote continues as trending looks like, 'no one' wins and the floor is open for nominations next month. If, by some chance one of the one's who wish to not be elected in, do infact win, they can resign their post after the vote. I see no reason why at this point, the stated rules won't solve the problem encountered here. No need to scrap a vote this far into it, and set bad precedent.

Plurality wins and abstention does not count so whoever amongst the actual candidates has the greatest number of votes will win.

Then I fail to see why you push us towards an abstaining vote where a 'none' of the above better fits for those who don't want any, rather than who want to abstain from the particular vote.

[CmdrWilkens]

Plurality wins and abstention does not count so whoever amongst the actual candidates has the greatest number of votes will win.

Then I fail to see why you push us towards an abstaining vote where a 'none' of the above better fits for those who don't want any, rather than who want to abstain from the particular vote.

Not having a "none" option in this poll was a mistake but at the same time I think far too many Senators have used "none" in the past as a convenient way to avoid actually considering the nominees. So basiclly I am of two minds:
-There are those who do honestly believe we should not have more Senators (or who believe that the one(s) presented are not qualified) and for them "none" is hoenstly what they want to vote for.
- Conversely I think, and yes this is subjective admittedly, that far too many Senators use "none" where what they really mean is 'I don't have enough information to make a decision" in which case the appropriate response is to abstain.

My thought process runs in terms of a real ballot. Say you were at the poll and had the option between candidate A, candidate B, a write-in and undervoting the position. If you honestly do not want either A or B for the post then the appropriate course would be to write in a candidate (vote "none") however if you just don't know enough either about the position or the people under consideration then undervoting ("abstain") would be the appropriate response. So that is where I am coming from and others are certainly free to disagree with my perspective on the logic of how votes should be apportioned.

[Sea Skimmer]

The votes that went to Ace Pace as of the time of my posting this message could make two other candidates equal or superior to the current top of the poll, and I happen to be one of the persons voting for Pace.

Throw in the fact that the poll did not have a none of the above option and I see ample grounds for a new vote if he’s dropping out. If we are going to continue be so damn legalist about everything the senate does, which is probably a factor in why Ace Pace dropped out, then that’s the way it should be. I do not see what bad precedent at all could be set, I only see a bad precedent in continuing this poll as it stands when members are effectively being denied a vote.

[Knife]

The votes that went to Ace Pace as of the time of my posting this message could make two other candidates equal or superior to the current top of the poll, and I happen to be one of the persons voting for Pace.

Throw in the fact that the poll did not have a none of the above option and I see ample grounds for a new vote if he’s dropping out. If we are going to continue be so damn legalist about everything the senate does, which is probably a factor in why Ace Pace dropped out, then that’s the way it should be. I do not see what bad precedent at all could be set, I only see a bad precedent in continuing this poll as it stands when members are effectively being denied a vote.

Because if a majority of senators dont' want any of them, then there shouldn't be a new member this month, however if any number of Senator's don't care about the vote or don't know which to choose (can't decide between two candidates for example) an abstain means something totally different. If Gregs thought process is right, then my abstain vote now no longer counts any more than your vote for Ace Pace who dropped out.

[Sea Skimmer]

Because if a majority of senators dont' want any of them, then there shouldn't be a new member this month, however if any number of Senator's don't care about the vote or don't know which to choose (can't decide between two candidates for example) an abstain means something totally different. If Gregs thought process is right, then my abstain vote now no longer counts any more than your vote for Ace Pace who dropped out.

Yeah exactly, my vote doesn’t count now, and I wanted it to count, and we have numerous people in the thread already complaining about being forced into a vote they didn’t want. A none vote does count, an abstain does not. The poll is inherently flawed. Its pretty ridiculous in the first place that we go months with no votes at all, then turn right around and pack six people into one vote.

[Knife]

Because if a majority of senators dont' want any of them, then there shouldn't be a new member this month, however if any number of Senator's don't care about the vote or don't know which to choose (can't decide between two candidates for example) an abstain means something totally different. If Gregs thought process is right, then my abstain vote now no longer counts any more than your vote for Ace Pace who dropped out.

Yeah exactly, my vote doesn’t count now, and I wanted it to count, and we have numerous people in the thread already complaining about being forced into a vote they didn’t want. A none vote does count, an abstain does not. The poll is inherently flawed. Its pretty ridiculous in the first place that we go months with no votes at all, then turn right around and pack six people into one vote.

My objection to stopping the vote was predicated on the (now false) notion that abstains held sway. Now that that is cleared up, I'm in agreement with you.

[LadyTevar]

We have a motion, and a Second.

More discussion?

[The Yosemite Bear]

nah I say a new poll with a None of the Above as well as an abstain option.

[CmdrWilkens]

An admin or someone with mod powers in this forum would have to re-set the thread because I am not able to do so yet.