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

Obviously there is no objective answer to your question, it's just a 
matter of opinion, but I do not think that spoiled ballots need to have 
any formal impact at all.

Under the rules I have put forward, voters are clear on where they 
stand: if they believe the motion is invalid, they can vote against it.

However, your quote concerns the validity of a vote - what determines 
this? I was under the impression that an invalid vote is a vote which 
violates the rules in some way. Under my proposal, such a vote would 
have no effect whatsoever.

I know this is a bit vague but I hope it answers your question somewhat.

albino

On 16/08/18 17:45, Sebastian Makowiecki wrote:
> 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)
>     <https://lists.opennicproject.org/sympa/arc/discuss/2018-07/msg00113.html%29>  
>     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]



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