All,
Earlier this afternoon, the Electorate voted 15-1 to amend the Covenant to alter the effect of abstentions in Electorate votes. Last weekend's vote on Drac's Justicar nomination revealed that our existing system for handling abstentions was not well designed for unanticipated situations in which multiple electors would abstain from voting for reasons unrelated to conflicts of interest, which, historically, has been the only use of the mechanism outside of vacant positions.
Prior to today, if an elector abstained their vote would have the effect of a "No" vote because it would not reduce the voting threshold required for a vote to succeed (typically three fourths, including for amending the Covenant and confirming Justicar and Grand Master).
In the wake of last week's vote, most of the Electorate and many other members indicated an interest in reforming the voting process to make abstentions more akin to a vacancy by reducing the total size of the Electorate by one for each abstention. Moreover, we realized that the Covenant did not permit Proconsuls to vote in lieu of their Consuls in case the Consul abstained.
Therefore, to encourage electors to enter decisive "Yes" or "No" votes in most cases, and to ensure clans voting representation through their otherwise-eligible Proconsuls, I proposed an amendment to Covenant section 1.05(d) to reduce the effective size of the Electorate by one for each abstention vote without altering the percentage vote threshold required to pass any vote, and to permit Proconsuls otherwise eligible under the Covenant to vote if their Consuls abstain.
After a little over 48 hours of discussion, I called for a vote and the Electorate passed the amendment by a vote of 15 to 1. You can find the revised section 1.05(d) on the Covenant page of the wiki.
I'm happy to answer any questions about this amendment. I also want to note that some minor additional amendments initially suggested during our discussion period, such as additional time for a Proconsul to vote in the Consul abstains, and potentially clarifying some of the language used in section 1.05 may be presented to the Electorate for consideration in the coming days.
You need to be logged in to post comments
I think it's extremely important to ensure the voice of the Membership is heard in all matters DJB. As the Covenent says, the Membership is our most important aspect and valuable resource, so all measures should be taken to ensure that it is the Membership (as represented by their Consuls) that get the most important say in all common matters.
Not sure where you're going with that... but that's not how it works. No Electorate member's voice is more important than another's. Members of the Electorate vote as equals.
What Noobi says.
Most voting conventions do not allow abstentions to reduce the required majority. Abstention is not "absent." Those are two very different situations. Whether it is as a conflict of interest or not an abstention only should affect quorum and not required votes. Votes have always been "majority of those who are present" and those present establish quorum. I could not disagree with the decision of the electorate more and moreover granting someone a vote because their immediate superior has abstained is also troubling. It essentially forces a Consul to vote Yes or No, or otherwise lose their voting privilege. Does this also extend to Praetors under Dark Councilors?
No. Praetors are not DCers.
What PandaFather says
There's no one single way abstentions are handled in global voting systems. Given the very small size of our electorate, however, this seems a sensible solution.
This also enables a clan to truly abstain from a vote without concerns about it essentially being a no, while also ensuring that conflict of interests shouldn't result in a unit losing representation in a vote.
After talking about justification with a voting member, I see the argument and agree. The most common voting convention for small groups (and basically any parliamentary organization) is Robert's Rules of Order and I was basing my argument on that. If the intention is that a Clan gets a vote and not specifically the Consul, that should expanded in 1.05a.
While I understand there are some talking points and discussions to have. These should be done with your respective clan leaders and members, not on the comment section. These discussions should have been done before the vote and if they were not discussed with your respective clan before the vote that is another issue.
Maybe these questions were already asked but had little impact?
My concern is that thr Abstain basically nullifies a clans voice in general by making the total required amount drop by 1. If the PCON is just as equal to the CON (can speak up when the CON is removed from the situation) then the vote shouldn't decrease. This comes off as punishment for an abstain, not encouragement. If the point is to give only yes or no options, then just remove abstaining entirely.
I also still believe that the voting should not be livestreamed. As it was mentioned about "real life voting" in generL chat, if anything the votes should remain private from the entire public until the vote has concluded, allow those who wish to advertise their vote publicly but cannot do that for other clans. Advertising other clan votes takes away their power and control over their vote as they may not wish to publish their vote outside of their clan. Once all votes are finished, then just say the number of yes versus no and if it passed/did not.
I have to admit, it's a little weird seeing so much resistance about the change to abstain votes coming from a Clan whose Consul didn't abstain, and the Consuls that did voted yes to this amendment. That aside, this does not nullify a clan's voice at all, as the Proconsul is able to vote in lieu of the Consul in the best interest of the Clan. There should be no abstains for any reason other than a heavy personal bias, which is where the new procedure for allowing a Proconsul to vote in lieu comes in.. so that argument holds no weight. There is no punishment for abstaining, because the Proconsul may vote in lieu. There should never be an "encouragement" to abstain anyways, as historically (until this vote) abstains were for personal bias, not lack of confidence in approachability.
A Consul as the "representative" (I use this term in quotes because it's not as if a Consul is elected... they are appointed, and serve at the pleasure of the Grandmaster) of their clan's interests should be able to definitely make a yes or no decision on votes regarding the Covenant, Grandmaster nomination, or Justicar nomination; it's literally part of the job. If they are unable to discharge that duty of their office, there is now a mechanism in place by which their deputy may vote in their place. It doesn't silence anyone; if you can't definitely say "yes" to a candidate (i.e. you're stuck in the middle about whether to or not) you should be voting no. You shouldn't abstain because you can't make a decision on which way to go.
This is not "real life voting"; this system is our own, tailored to our club. The current policy (and the most sound from where I sit) is that Consuls are not required to keep information regarding amendments, or votes, from the people they represent. It is completely within an individual Consul's purview whether to keep their members informed of the voting; some do, some don't. As far as I'm aware, the only place that the vote was "live streamed" was inside the Clan Vizsla chat; which is primarily for Clan Vizsla members first, others second - like any other clan chat. No one forces anyone to be in their channel for any reason. It was only after the vote had concluded that the Vizsla Consul shared the voting results publicly with the rest of the club in the DB General channel.
I should add that the final point of my first paragraph, "lack of confidence in approachability" is just an assumption as it was a defining point made in Evant's news post regarding the Justicar nomination vote.
A general issue from our Clan, the sole no vote, was that abstaining as a conscious voting choice was not being considered, as opposed to everyone assuming -- to the point of Bubba declaring it as the pertinent reasoning for this in his follow-up explanation to the Consuls -- that a Consul is at fault and/or "indecisive, irresponsible" or a "coward," or not "discharging the duty of their office," because the only reason they would do that is personal bias or intent to silence their own Clan's voice (Bubba, email; Pravus, Telegram; Anubis, the above comments)? As opposed to, say, an alternative to saying yes or no (depending on the way the voting is going) or another way of saying so that is inherently safer from possible retribution. There is a reason voting is generally protected and private; no one required to publish how they voted or explain why they did. They do not owe explanations, and they may feel social pressures or be barred from office for their behavior (as we have seen, behavior is a credible reason that people care stringently about when it comes to appointments and trust in leadership).
Note, in this instance, under the Covenant, only the GM actively firing a Consul counts as "retribution," so it does not consider all sociopolitical elements the DB has baked into its culture. More the letter of the law than the spirit of it. There would have been better ways to enshrine in text the PCON's ability to assume the voting power in actual absence of their Consul -- say, no response at all in 48 hours -- or when the Consul actually excused themselves. Those are very different than Clans actually being present to vote and presenting their vote as an abstain, and narrowing voting options to be more "decisive" is dangerous ground. Any narrowing of voting is.
But it is done now, and so we see what comes next.
You are missing the point I stated that abstaining reduces the total number of votes. That changes the total amount needed to pass a nomination. That reduction in point means that the clan, which the CON abstain, effectively means nothing even if the PCON votes yes or no. I also referenced to "real life voting" as Mav, the previous GM, mentioned this in the General Telegram chat. The live streaming of votes shouldn't happen at all. Even if the Clan chat for Vizsla is primarily for members, that doesn't stop the fact that the votes can be shared outside of the clan via screenshots and sharing of said comments. There are also people in that chat who are not Vizsla who are also Consuls/PCON for other clans. It wasn't just an "after the vote finished" that names were called and people were judged for their votes. It happened in that chat as I said that had people who are not Vizsla and are also people who voted in the nomination. Those votes by other CONs are not for others to share if the entire voting has not finished. Regular members should not be informed as to what other clans vote during the nomination. If the CON of their specific clan wants to share what their clan voted, then yes, I agree. They have that right to share, but not any other clan's vote.
Abstaining is not a conscience voting choice. It means you are not voting. Therefore the vote should not count any way in determining the outcome. In the previous wording, the vote did count in that it was not a yes or no but the vote still counted in the 3/4 needed to pass so it was not a real Abstain. In doing so making an Abstain an immediate no. If you dislike some of the other wording create a proposal and have it looked at.
As far as Vizsla goes it is extremely funny that a clan is being singled out for having open and honest communication with its members and promotes transparency in DB affairs. If you, your clan summit, or others don't want to see what is in there don't join or leave that chat. Again there has never been a single issue with Vizsla "live streaming" the vote which was also done with Evant as the GM until Consuls had reason to have their votes questioned. Which by the way should be done in a healthy DB society. Super secret voting, Real retribution and lack of transparency is a huge reason why this club is no longer a part of the EH. Many newer members don't understand nor were here during the times of people being removed for speaking their mind. Kicked from the DJB because they had an opinion that someone didn't like or voted the wrong way. Those of us who were Kicked out and/or removed have a much different take on what you call "retribution" and want as much transparancy and ability for everyone to question each other as possible because that stops the club turns into something you don't want to see.
I'll address both Atty's and Zevon's first points, short 'n sweet. Abstaining as a conscious voting choice was likely not being considered (this is speculation, as I'm not a member of the Electorate, and so far the only person to comment on this thread that IS a member of it is Howlader) because the actual definition of the word abstain as spelled out by several sources on the web is "to not vote", or to "formally decline to vote either for or against a proposal or motion." You're not voting, you're declining to vote.
Prior to this amendment, the abstain did not reduce the total number of votes required to pass a nomination or change to the Covenant, therefore effectively acting as a "no" vote. As explained in this news post, it was something that was overlooked during the drafting of the Covenant. Based on the definition of the word abstain as I explained above, if you're not going to vote, there's no reason why choosing to abstain should not lower the amount needed. Person X has chosen not to make a choice, so why should the rest of the voters (or things being voted on) be beholden to that abstain if they have chosen not to exercise that right.
Zevon, if you feel so strongly about the live-streaming of votes or sharing of the votes from each member of the electorate in general, you should consider getting a member of the electorate (per the Covenant) to sponsor an amendment that prevents such a thing. Otherwise, any Consul has every right to. As I said, no one forces anyone to be in the Clan Vizsla channel. Those that are aware of the fact Pravus prefers to live-stream or reveal the votes in his clan's channels should deal with it, or leave until the voting has completed. The only other avenue is the one I have mentioned above, an amendment to the Covenant restricting such things, but I fail to see how transparency in the single most important votes in our club is a bad thing.
I will speak to members of the electorate then.
The decision to abstain from the vote as it was used for Drac was essentially a "no confidence" vote for the candidate. The Covenant should have been left alone in regards to this. The point was to say "We don't like the choice, and we won't vote for him..." As there was no one else to vote for, the vote was a nice way for the electorate to vote "No" without being "mean" I guess. :)
You don't have confidence in the candidate? You vote no. You don't "like the choice" (Although you should clearly have reasoning to back it up besides personal bias, which is where the abstain and Proconsul voting-in-lieu come in)? You vote no.
Once again, abstaining by its very definition is not voting. This amendment was necessary to reconcile our system with the actual meaning of the word, not to let people play pretend and think it's a "nice way" to say no.
Anubis, I personally agree that we should have just voted no. :)