🚀 go-pugleaf

Submitted-by: rml@hpfcdc.fc.hp.com (Bob Lenk)

In article <1992Apr2.025223.27860@uunet.uu.net> stephe@mks.com (Stephen Walli)
writes:

>          Taken to  an  extreme, this  means  that regardless  of  the
>          ballot pool  size,  if 3  people  vote affirmative, 1  votes
>          negative and the  rest abstain, the  initiative passes.  The
>          moral of the story is:  abstain only as a last resort, there
>          may be deleterious side effects.

While this is true, I wouldn't necessarily draw the conclusion that I
infer (vote negative rather than abstain).  Remember that a negative
ballot must contain specific objections which, if addressed, would make
the ballot affirmative.  Thus a negative ballot is actually an
affirmative response for the subsequent ballot with preconditions.  In
other words, a negative ballot which doesn't cover all of its
submitter's real objections to the standard could have even more
"deleterious side effects".

Perhaps the conclusion I inferred was not intended.  Another possible
conclusion is "do not submit a ballot rather than abstain".  I agree
that it makes sense not to join a balloting group rather than to join
and abstain.  If one has chosen to join, I think it is appropriate to
submit a ballot.

		Bob Lenk
		rml@fc.hp.com
		{uunet,hplabs}!fc.hp.com!rml


Volume-Number: Volume 27, Number 77