I think that abstentions can be more problematic (or less problematic) depending on what is required for a resolution or matter to pass. For example, one problem is if all that it takes is for the majority "of those voting" to vote in favor of a resolution. Well, then the problem is that every person that abstains waters down what is necessary for the resolution to pass, and resolutions can then pass with only a small minority voting for something. Everyone else, who either did not have enough info to vote in favor or didn't feel that they had enough information to vote against simply abstains and you get all kinds of things passing that you might not have wanted to pass.
Now, on the flip side, if the way that things are defined is "majority of those present" or "majority of those eligible to vote", then you get the more true pulse of what everyone really wanted - w/out forcing them to conceal their vote by abstaining. They simply abstain but the voice is still heard and has effect.
Accordingly, if there is going to be a chance to abstain, perhaps changing the language from "majority of those voting" to "majority of those present" or "majority of those entitled to vote" should probably be done in order to truly see how a group feels about something...b/c then, even abstentions have effect.
ETA: It is true that Robert's Rules of Order may say x about the weight of abstentions but a company or organization's rules can trump Robert's Rules. This is why it is important for folk to really understand the power of an abstention in their respective company or org. Read the governing documents, whatever they may, and figure out what is required for something to pass. In different instances, depending on the subject matter at hand, the rules may differ. For example, with corporations and shareholders, for fundamental, important changes (ex: mergers), it takes a "majority of those entitled to vote" (not "majority of those present") in order to pass. In that case, if you abstain, the effect is to vote no. Similarly, in some organizations, the docs say "majority of those voting". In this case, it can be somewhat irresponsible to abstain, especially if the issue is important, because the result is that things happen or get approved based on just a few people who were willing to say yes or no one way or the other. Sometimes the best decision is not made with just a few voting, as you might imagine.
In one community board that I was apart of, membership admission was based on the majority "of those voting." Therefore, when one does not vote on a candidate, one is really doing the proverbial "leaving the gate open" for whomever to come in. This, I imagine can be a problem in any organization with this sort of stipulation as to how things pass. Thus, we need to all check our docs and figure out the power of an abstention. It may not be as harmless as one might think upon initial consideration. Consider the problem that I noted above with the community board.
SC
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA2D '91
Situation: There is a serious issue going on in your chapter. It has been heavily debated and discussed. It's now time for the vote. The vote is called, you have your 'Yes' votes, your 'No' votes and those who have 'Abstained'.
My question is why is it necessary to abstain from the vote?
Doesn't it make more sense to stand for something (for or against the measure) as opposed to just saying "I have no opinion on the matter at all"?
This is something I have yet to understand. IMO, there is no in between, either you are for or against.
Your thoughts...
Really, this issue isn't limited to greekdom, but I'd like for the Greeks out there to respond.  |