[discussion]None of the above

[Knife]

Ok, the issue has been brought up before in various threads and I think needs to be addressed, plus god forbid if you bring it up without an appropriate [discussion] thread or some get all bent out of shape. The powers that be have been saying if you don't like either (or all) vote abstain and if you can't make up your mind, abstain. Which is what I've been doing when I encounter the problem in a vote. Now it seems, abstaining a vote is not counted, which if you can't decide between two and just wish to be 'present' on a vote is ok.

However, if you really mean I don't want any, it would seem that there is no way that point of view can win and thus the vote is wasted in an abstain. Especially with another body bringing nominations to the floor, should there not be a 'none of the above' vote which carries the same weight as a vote of a candidate? If none of the above wins, should not all candidates lose?

[Mad]

If none of the above wins, should not all candidates lose?

Yes.

The rationale for not having a "none" option is:

I think the "none" option is too easy to chose without any reflection.

A "none" option might be "too easy," but the Senate should be considered responsible enough to make that decision because "none" can most definitely be a legitimate vote. The Senate should be encouraged to use "abstain" more often and Senators should not feel pressured to pick an option he or she is not informed about yet.

[The Yosemite Bear]

we're the frakking senate we should have a thumbs down option/

[CmdrWilkens]

I will admit that in the past "none" has been an option and this was more a mistake on my part just not one that I paticularly regret.

[Noble Ire]

It is entirely possible that upon careful reflection, regardless of the size of the pool of senatorial nominees, a sitting senator may decide that none are adequately qualified. I see no reason why a "No" option should not be included for such a circumstance.

Please note that I'm speaking with an eye toward precedent and general practice; I don't mean for this to be a statement on the current list of candidates.

[Ted C]

I wouldn't expect to use it, but I can see where a "none" option would help some people, and it wouldn't hurt to have it for completeness.

[Knife]

It is entirely possible that upon careful reflection, regardless of the size of the pool of senatorial nominees, a sitting senator may decide that none are adequately qualified. I see no reason why a "No" option should not be included for such a circumstance.

Please note that I'm speaking with an eye toward precedent and general practice; I don't mean for this to be a statement on the current list of candidates.

I've encounted both situations. There are times when two candidates were worthy and I couldn't make a definate choice between the two, so abstain was a good choice for me. In most of those instances, the nominee's were brought up again so it was of little concern. There are also times where I don't want any of the nominee's and as such voting 'abstain' and not having that count is a waste of my vote.

Now the current vote, one can assume a lot of those 'abstains' are a vote for none of them as some Senator's have come out and said they don't want any new Senator's this round. This view point seems to be forbidden with the current rules.

I move that we add this provision in the rules, that a vote thread with nominations to the Senate include both an 'abstain' and a 'none of the above' where abstain retains it's neutral or zero vote count nature, but none of the above is counted as a choice and if wins a majority of votes, no one wins and the floor is open to new nominations, even the same nominations as before.

Do I get a second?

[Simplicius]

I have always understood (and used) Abstain merely to mark presence for a vote and thus contribute to quorum without actually participating in the vote itself. So I second the motion.

[CmdrWilkens]

I want to clarify my remarks becuase I'm not sure if my position has been entirely evident:

1) I do think folks use "none" too automatically

HOWEVER

2) Not including it was an error on my part, we have had "none of the above" on prior ascension polls and we will have them in the future.

[Knife]

The motion was made and seconded. I call for an Executor to put forth a vote on the floor to add these rules to the Senate. Especially in light of the current nomination thread/vote's conclusion.