[pp.int.general] Minutes of PPI GA 2013

[Nuno Cardoso]

Zbigniew is correct.

There is a difference between Abstentions and Blank votes. In PPI we can't
vote Blank, we vote either Yes or No or Abstain from voting, in which case
it doesn't get taken into account, which is exactly what the RoP for
the GA<http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#Art._6a_Elections>stated:

"6 c) The candidates that has achieved a simple majority of the "yes" votes
from Ordinary Members present or represented and voting on
them[18]<http://wiki.pp-international.net/PPI_Conference_2013/GA_meeting/RoP#cite_note-17>
are
elected in the order determined by number of "yes" votes accumulated.
Abstentions are not taken into account. In event of a tie where order
matters, deciding elections are held, where only one "yes" vote per
Ordinary Member can be cast."

When saying that "Abstentions are not taken into account" it refers to the
whole previous sentence, so for the "simple majority of the "yes" votes
from Ordinary Members present or represented *AND* voting on them" the
"Abstentions
are not taken into account", because even if they are "Ordinary Members
present or represented" there is that extra "*AND* voting on them" for
which "Abstentions are not taken into account". If Abstentions were taken
into account then there would be no need for that condition as it would be
impossible not to be "voting on them" by default.

Even if that wasn't clear enough (with Abstentions "taken into account" as
"ballots cast") and we were to discuss what a "simple
majority<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simple_majority>"
is, we would still probably go with the definition as it is used on most of
the world (except for the USA and Canada) which means
"Plurality<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_(voting)>,
a voting requirement of more ballots cast for a proposition than for any
other option", instead of "Majority <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority>,
a voting requirement of more than half of all ballots cast"

Anyway, I think this is so crystal clear that all the 5 confirmed CoA
members will welcome the 2 others unless, like some loud voices here seem
to, they have a personal grudge or hidden agenda against those 2
individuals or PPI as a whole.

Pirate regards,
Nuno Cardoso


On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 6:44 AM, Zbigniew Łukasiak <zzbbyy at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Wed, Jun 12, 2013 at 5:37 AM, Antonio Garcia <ningunotro at hotmail.com>
> wrote:
> > It feels like it is useless to argue.
> >
> > The abstentions that do not count towards the vote for the election of
> the
> > members of the CoA are those of the members of the PPI that did not care
> to
> > show up to participate, be it sending a delegate or having delegated
> their
> > vote to someone present. This is, if PPI had 50 members with voting
> rights
> > then 50% approval would need 26 votes, unless abstentions did not count
> and
> > only the 16 represented at the exact time and place the voting was
> organized
> > were taken into account.
>
> The wikipedia definition of abstention in parliamentary procedure (and
> I believe this was one) states that it is about delegates that are
> present but not voting:
>
> Abstention is a term in election procedure for when a participant in a
> vote either does not go to vote (on election day) or, in parliamentary
> procedure, is present during the vote, but does not cast a ballot.
> Abstention must be contrasted with "blank vote", in which a voter
> casts a ballot willfully made invalid by marking it wrongly or by not
> marking anything at all.
>
>
> >
> > Then, the candidates have to achieve a simple majority of "yes" votes
> from
> > the members present and voting. All of them have to obtain at least 9
> votes,
> > which is the simple majority of the 16 present. Abstentions do not
> count...
> > in the sense that if only 10 cast votes on one specific candidate... the
> six
> > remaining are not subtracted... he still has to achieve 9 yes votes to be
> > in.
>
> I don't know any procedure where there was some subtracting of votes -
> so this interpretation sound suspicious to me.  I think the only
> reasonable interpretation is that the abstention don't count towards
> the total number of votes as in the 'simple majority' requirement.
>
>
>
> --
> Zbigniew Lukasiak
> http://brudnopis.blogspot.com/
> http://perlalchemy.blogspot.com/
> ____________________________________________________
> Pirate Parties International - General Talk
> pp.international.general at lists.pirateweb.net
> http://lists.pirateweb.net/mailman/listinfo/pp.international.general
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.pirateweb.net/pipermail/pp.international.general/attachments/20130612/42055ded/attachment.html>