[Amendment] Abolish CdeC

[Squid]

Yeah but only 84 for of the votes count, not 88.

You need two-thirds of non-abstaining (84) votes, two thirds of 84 is 56, 58 voted to pass the proposal so it passed by two... what aren't I getting?

It passed by four votes, since it would take 4 more no votes for it to have failed, or looking at it another way since you only needed 52 yes votes to pass with 26 no votes, you had a 4 vote pass cushion.

[Ishan]

It passed by four votes, since it would take 4 more no votes for it to have failed, or looking at it another way since you only needed 52 yes votes to pass with 26 no votes, you had a 4 vote pass cushion.

Doesn't it automatically gets coloured red like (50-48-5) if it fails?

[Astaroth]

Yeah but only 84 for of the votes count, not 88.

You need two-thirds of non-abstaining (84) votes, two thirds of 84 is 56, 58 voted to pass the proposal so it passed by two... what aren't I getting?

You missed that if 2 fewer people (56 rather than 58) had voted yes, you would also need to remove those from the total number of non-abstaining votes, i.e. with two less people voting yes, it would've been 56/82 (not 84) = 68.29%.

[StealthFox]

Yeah but only 84 for of the votes count, not 88.

You need two-thirds of non-abstaining (84) votes, two thirds of 84 is 56, 58 voted to pass the proposal so it passed by two... what aren't I getting?

I didn't count the abstaining votes at all in my post.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

EDIT: That is moot though, surely? Because 2 people didn't vote less, and the Constitution says the proposal needs to pass with 2/3rds non-abstaining votes, so 2/3rds of 84 (the non-abstaining votes) is still 56 no matter how you look at it?

EDIT2: Ah never mind, it still passed anyway.

[StealthFox]

I think the coloring only indicates simply majority (51%-49%) and it does not ignore the abstaining votes.

[Ishan]

I think the coloring only indicates simply majority (51%-49%) and it does not ignore the abstaining votes.

I think these things are just based on simple scripts whenever 'Yes, No, Abstain' are put in place. So a techie can put such an automatic mathematical requirement by excluding abstain numbers. I could be wrong though.

[Squid]

I think the coloring only indicates simply majority (51%-49%) and it does not ignore the abstaining votes.

The coloring takes into account the two-thirds majority required, you can look back at some previous votes to see this is the case.

[Astaroth]

Yes, but for a scenario to occur where 56 of 84 non-abstaining votes were in favour, you would need to have 28 (rather than the current 26) votes against the proposal. Otherwise the non-abstaining vote total would be below 84.

In other words, for a 56/84 scenario to occur, you would need to move 2 votes from the "Yes" into the "No" column.

Ultimately, it boils down to what you mean by "it passed by X votes". Does it mean that these X votes would be moved from "Yes" to "No", which is what you are effectively doing? Or does it mean that those X votes would be removed/not counted/moved to the abstain column instead? In that case, you would end up with a lower total amount of non-abstaining votes as well.

I think the latter makes a lot more sense. Because if you just go with the 56/84 scenario, you are not only removing 2 votes from the "Yes" column but also add 2 votes to the "No" column, which IMO isn't logical in the context of determing how many votes something passed by.

[Harry Lime]

You have been censured by an organisation that no longer exits. That would have as much impact on me as Zebedee telling me it was time for bed.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

The pass 'requirement' will always change if you change the number of voters, I was just viewing it as that out of the 84 (non-abstaining) voters 56 needed to vote yes, 58 did so it passed by 2. If it passed by for that would mean that 54 people would need to vote yes for it too pass - which can't be right because 54 is below 2/3rds of 84.

I'm not moving those votes to "No" I'm just saying that's how many it passed by according to the 2/3rds non-abstaining rule. If those votes weren't there then the amount needed to vote yes (to get to 2/3rds) would decrease, sure, but that hasn't happened.

[Astaroth]

I'm not moving those votes to "No"

But that's exactly what you are doing. It's fairly basic math.

We have 84 votes. Out of these, 58 are "yes" and 26 are "no" votes.

You say that it passed by 2 votes because 56/84 is 2/3rds. But what does that mean in practice?

Yes votes+No votes = total amount of votes. 56 + X = 84? --> X=28.

In other words, in a 56/84 scenario, 28 people would HAVE to vote "No". However, that would be 2 more "No" votes than in the actual poll.

Meaning that there is no other possible conclusion aside from substracting 2 votes from the "Yes" column and moving them to "No".

In other words, you are equating "it passed by 2 votes" with "it passed by two votes if those two votes were moved from "Yes" to "No"".

IMO a much more sensible approach is to say "it passed by X votes" whereas X votes is the amount of votes that would need to be removed from the "Yes" column (but WITHOUT adding them to the "No" column, because that doesn't make any sense) altogether, which would inevitably also remove them from the TOTAL number of votes.

These complications arise from the close connection between the total number of votes (which is variable) and the amount of votes needed for the amendment to pass. But again, the Math is pretty simple. However, ignoring the fact that removing votes from one column affects the total number of votes doesn't make sense.

I'll leave it at that now.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Yes votes+No votes = total amount of votes. 56 + X = 84? --> X=28.

There were 58 yes votes, 58 + X = 84 --> X = 26.

I'm not talking about a 56 scenario (which hasn't happened), I'm just saying that with the current number of votes, and the current number of yes and no votes, there were 2 more than needed to pass with the current number of votes. That number required to pass will always change if you discount those 2 extra votes, but I'm not. I'm saying it got 58 yes votes. If it got 55 yes votes and 29 no votes (still 84 votes) then it wouldn't have passed. 57 yes votes, 27 no votes (still 84 votes) then it would have passed by one. with 84 counting votes no matter how you look at it 56 is still 2/3rds of 84, hence the number of yes votes needed to pass with 84 votes would need to be have been higher than 56 to pass. It was 58, 2 higher, hence it passed by 2.

An Amendment needs two-thirds of non-abstaining votes upon conclusion of voting to pass, yes?
There were 84 non-abstaining votes, yes?
Two-thirds of 84 is 56, yes?
So there needs to be more than 56 yes votes for the Amendment to pass, yes?
58 users voted yes in this Amendment, yes?
58 is two more than 56, yes?

If all those questions are right I fail to see why this amendment did not pas by 2 votes.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

If the Constitution uses the simple two-thirds majority rule then the proposal actually passed by 6 votes...

[Garbarsardar]

Can someone please update the Constitution?

[StealthFox]

Ah, cool. I didn't know that.

[Shankbot de Bodemloze]

Passed.