[opennic-discuss] [DISCUSSION] Clarification of voting rules

Isn't the point or spoiled ballots to have an impact if enough invalid votes are cast? Isn't this the whole point of the ongoing discussion? Now it's clear to me we are not all on the same page.

The way I understood it the rule such as (or similar):

”The validity of a vote may be questioned if there is an unusually high proportion of spoiled votes."

should apply.

The above is an indirect quote from wikipedia article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoilt_vote



~ 
Sebastian Makowiecki

On 16 August 2018 17:01:14 GMT+01:00, Al Beano <[email protected]> wrote:
>Voting starts: 2018-08-16 16:00 UTC
>Voting ends: 2018-08-23 16:00 UTC
>
>The quality of discourse on this list recently has been extremely poor,
>
>and although I am loath to introduce yet another bureaucratic vote, I 
>think that a standard, agreed upon set of voting rules would go some
>way 
>towards improving things here.
>
>I started a discussion about this some weeks ago 
>(https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html)
>
>and I am now bringing this to a vote.
>
>1. Formal votes on proposals submitted to the mailing list will have 
>three possible responses: yes, no and spoiled ballot/abstention.
>2. Responses which clearly contain "YES", "AYE" or words to that effect
>
>will be considered "yes" votes.
>3. Responses which clearly contain "NO", "NAY" or words to that effect 
>will be considered "no" votes.
>4. All other responses will be considered abstentions from voting and 
>counted as such.
>5. Motions will pass with a simple majority of all yes/no votes. 
>Abstentions do not affect the outcome in any way. They are
>informational.
>6. In the event of a tie, the status quo will be preserved.
>7. This proposal will govern all votes submitted after it passes.
>
>This proposal only governs *formal* votes - that is, votes which will 
>directly affect the way OpenNIC runs. If members want to use a
>different 
>method to gauge the membership's opinion, for example to allow more
>than 
>two outcomes in a vote, they are still able to do that in any way they 
>want. If they want to make a formal change to the rules after that,
>they 
>would have to run a vote in compliance with the rules above.
>
>Obviously, my vote for this is YES.
>
>albino



--------
You are a member of the OpenNIC Discuss list. 
You may unsubscribe by emailing [email protected]