The "Abstain" option in polls

[mtgillespie]

There has been some discussion about the use of the abstain option in polls, where it is valid and what it actually means. I posted this in another thread, although it probably wasnt appropriate. I'm not going to go into what abstain currently means, but i think if we have it defined, it could be a useful tool.

At the moment, either abstain votes will count either as a no, or will not affect the vote at all (I believe there will be debate on this, as it is not specified one way or the other). In either case, what are they there for?

I've been thinking about this for a little while, and wonder if we should have an amendment, whereby a certain percentage of abstain votes allows/requires a re-poll, with a modified proposal, but no three week waiting period is required. This allows for ammendments which are correct in theory but badly worded/unclear or have a small part which needs to be removed, without having to wait before being changed. It also means that and abstain vote has a significant effect, without being a yes or no, and can be used if people feel a poll has been posted without sufficient debate.

Do we need this, or should we get rid of the abstain option altogether? Comments please

[disorganizer]

It showed that the abstain will be a valuable means of determining the participation rates. By leaving it out, we can never tell why ppl did not vote. They could be not voting because they did not care for the result or for any other reason.

An example:
A poll without abstain has only 10 votes. What could this mean?
a) the poll did not reach enough ppl to be representative (maybe it ran too short? forum outage etc?)
b) citizens dont care about the result.
or
c) not enough citizens participating

in case a), the result would maybe not be the will of citizenry.
if we would have the abstain option, we could tell how many ppl really participated in the poll.

speaking for the embassy:
in phoenatica, we implemented a "quorum rule", which forces a poll to have a minimum participation to be binding for the government. this prevents us from basing our decisions on "false" poll-results. we learned from a decission being taken by a minority poll in the early game, which after the proposed step was taken showed to be not the way our citizens thought.

[civman2000]

abstain=no. However, in all polls except ones that need 2/3 to pass (ie amendments and impeachment) it doesn't matter because unless it's a drastic action (declaring war or similar things) the option with the most votes will simply win. The reason the economy poll currently in question does not pass is because yes does not have 2/3 of the votes, which is very clearly the requirement.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by civman2000
abstain=no. However, in all polls except ones that need 2/3 to pass (ie amendments and impeachment) it doesn't matter because unless it's a drastic action (declaring war or similar things) the option with the most votes will simply win. The reason the economy poll currently in question does not pass is because yes does not have 2/3 of the votes, which is very clearly the requirement.

I'm not arguing here what it means at the moment, that is for another place. However, whether it means no or not, it is not a useful option at the moment. It either means no, which already has an option, or it means nothing, because it will be discounted. What i am asking is, should we make it useful, or remove it. I see no reason for having it at the moment, whichever way the argument falls.

[civman2000]

It allows someone to vote against the poll itself. If has the same effect as no, but a different meaning. Abstain is also important in multiple option polls, because it means that the voter doesn't care or wants another option.

[mtgillespie]

That's my point. if you want another option, or the poll is done badly, or you agree with the spirit or not the wording, there is no way to vote no without making the poller wait three weeks to correct it, at least if we follow the letter of the law. This would help in those cases. It would give a different meaning and effect to no, which IMHO is more useful.

[GodKing]

OK - I abstained. Just switch my vote to yes and let this one pass. Then we can have the court relook into this.

If I remember Robert's Rules of Order correctly, an abstain is a method for a person to vote, without effecting the outcome either way. This is usually necessary when a plurality (a sertain minimum number of votes) is necessary for the proposal to be passed.

With that being the case, Timeline is correct. Abstians should not count toward the percentages of an amendment passing. Of course, with only 29 people voting either way, perhaps we should have an ammendment stating that we need a minimum number of votes.....

Per my earlier quote. Either we get rid of the banana option or we should have a plurality clause, saying that we need at least 50% of the people to vote on the issue as were present in the roll call poll of that week.....

Just thinking out loud.

[Aro]

We have 52 voters in the citizen census week 30 ( http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=56456 ) and 229+ citizens in member list ( http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...5&pagenumber=1 ).
2/3 means 153 voters. 50% means 115 voters. It's a lot of people. How many times will we be able to legitimate a plurality poll?
That is for another place, I agree with mtgillespie, but I couldn't find it.

[disorganizer]

aro: you could base minimum numbers on the census or presidential elections.

[Aro]

Thanks, disorganizer.

[Epistax]

My beef in the 'abstain' option rests in our unlimited sized legislature (All of us.. as we discussed).

One thing, 100 people might vote about. Another, 140 people might vote about. Isn't that, in essence, 40 additional abstains about the first ballet? At least 40 people didn't vote, so that's 40 abstains (definition of abstain).

If you disagree with any part of a poll/amendment, you need to vote no/nay, and state your reason.

[disorganizer]

epi:
* abstain is someone still being here and recognizing the poll, but: a) not caring about the result b) protesting about the poll itself
* not voting is the above or someone who a) didnt realize the poll at all b) is not here at the moment c) left the game

it is the same with not going to elections and giving invalid votes in real life.
if more ppl would give invalid votes in rl-elections if they find noone to vote for and are dissatisfied with all parties and candidates, this would be noticed by someone (hopefully).

[Fatwreck]

Abstain is needed, It would be a mock against democracy if we were to remove that option, you must be able to protest against a poll, a simple no does not do that...

[Spiffor]

I favor getting rid of abstains in polls. After all, if you don't click, you're abstaining (as do nearly 80% on our members on all matters).
But getting rid of abstention should be bundled with a minimal census, which should also be bundled with a reliable way to know how many active citizens we have (I fear disorganizer's censuses will be less effective over time).

Currently, as we don't have it, we should keep absention as an option, and declare the poll invalid if abstention reaches a certain stage. Just my ideas.

[Captain]

why don't we replace the option abstain with this poll is invalid?

then we don't need to worry about bickering over definitions (as fun as that might be).

I agree with disorganizer's quote

* abstain is someone still being here and recognizing the poll, but: a) not caring about the result b) protesting about the poll itself
* not voting is the above or someone who a) didnt realize the poll at all b) is not here at the moment c) left the game

but if they didn't care, then why bother voting?
only b) protesting the poll itself seems to make sense to me.

I see no other reason for an abstain. If they genuinely want to show they've seen the issue but simply cannot decide, they can post in the thread to show that - and then actually abstain by not voting.

but rationality cannot be said to govern human behaviour... perhaps we do have some click-happy voters...


(now that I think of it, there is one more reason. someone could vote to have the poll results display everytime they click the thread, otherwise they have to click a second time on "show poll results". So abstain could also mean "I want to check poll results frequently but dont' want to really vote, so I'll click on abstain because I'm too lazy to click twice every time I want to see th poll results")

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Captain
why don't we replace the option abstain with this poll is invalid?

That sounds nice. I'd also support present and not voting.

[disorganizer]

captain: i must admit, i did this with the "census yes/no" poll. i just wanted to save me a click. and i didnt want to state my opinion as im no apolytonian.

[Will 5001]

We should have an abstain option in ALL polls especially elections, for example if in an election the candidates are all hopeless, then if Abstain wins then the position remains empty on a poll on a decision: for example a yes no vote if abstain wins nothing will happen either way (if no means actively doing something), abstain is a vital option to show that people care

[MrWhereItsAt]

Abstain lets me say "I really badly wish this poll wasn't cluttering the forum and forcing interesting and potentially important information off the page". I might add I only started abstaining recently when I turned up after 12 hours and found the first page full of new replies/new threads, only TWO of which were about the GAME, what we are mostly here for.

Don't get me wrong, some of the non-game related threads here are highly intellectual and interesting, but I don't want so many of them that I can't even find the game when I want to!

Abstain/banana lets us all protest the poll as a waste of forum space.

[kring]

Abstain lets people know that people are voting; and as mentioned, if enough abstains are voted, then the poll would not pass, as abstain is neither a yes or a no vote. Abstain frequently is a sign of voters not liking the choices available, but still getting to voice an opinion. Removing it, and leaving only yes/no will result in fewer voters. It can send a message, esp. if a large enough group vote that way; when that happens, hopefully, they will post why they voted that way.

I don't have a problem with Captain's suggestion about the abstain being changed to this poll is invalid, or similar language. In some elections, you have none of the above as an option. Several elections back, none of the above got several thousand votes IRL, not enough to win the election, but enough to tell the parties we don't like either one of your candidates.

[DAVOUT]

Speaking just for me, what I'd like would be :
- desagree with both/all
and
- I don't care (meaning : I understand that my co-citizens are interested in that issue but I am not)

Abstains would be those who do not participate at all in the poll.

[Kloreep]

Abstain, IMO, allows people to show that they are present and voting, but do not have an opinion on the subject and do not wish to affect the vote's outcome.

I think "this poll is invalid" would be a nice additional option.