Const2k is suggesting that we disenfranchise half the people who voted.
That was over a year ago. There was no minimum vote requirement because there wasn't as many people TO vote. The forums just weren't as active. Your assertion that the guidelines were forced upon everyone are just wrong, deal with it.Darknemo2000 wrote:Nope smidge you are wrong, this poll you listed did not collected enough amount of votes (well at least the amount that GTO held for standart that he listed before starting this poll) thus cannot be held to be taken place at all.
So you admit that your pol is a false dichotomy because it presents only two extreme positions without any true consideration for a middle ground.Darknemo2000 wrote:The initial position of both "yes' and No' were uncompromisable thus changing one of the position into compromisable made bit more confusion than needed and changed the voting flow pretty strongly. My mistake as well as I should have corrected this at the start.
And how did you come up with these numbers? You are assuming that everyone who voted since the compromise was offered actually intended to vote for it. Correlation does not equal causation. So much for logic.Darknemo2000 wrote:You are suggesting logic but do not use logic that much
"Yes" - 14
"No" - 8
Compromise (I do not know/middle) - 8
So what would happen if the majority of people voted "I don't know" ? Bear in mind that the option existed before the compromise was brought up, so you can not argue that this is really the middle position. It is the neutral position. Even if "I don't know" came out as the majority, we would still choose based on the greater of "yes" or "no" votes.
And the right thing to do, then, would be to sink this poll and start over. You certainly don't seem too keen on doing that, though! (likely because it would not work to your advantage)Darknemo2000 wrote:Just because something worked in my favor doesn't mean that it should not be complained about as simply one cannot change the quotas during voting is not a very great or fair idea. Just because something worked in my favor doesn't make that something better or more right.
Since you used your own government as an example, I'll use mine as well. If a proposed law contains things people don't like, you vote against it. If the proposal is defeated, it gets rewritten and proposed again for another vote. The process repeats as many times as necessary until either the people proposing the law give up or enough votes are gained to approve it.Darknemo2000 wrote:In fact this poll became illegitimate when one of the positions shifted the standing based on compromise while the voting was still in process. Yet you cannot blame the starting format for that because it was approved and allowed to start without the rejection based on the not-matching format. It allowed the possibility for an error to happen but it itself wasn't the an error as such.
Hence, if you want a compromise, vote "No" so we can rewrite the proposal and vote on it again. We do not try to figure out who actually voted "yes" but wanted a compromise, who voted "no" but wanted a compromise, and who voted "Don't know" but wanted a compromise. That's called "shenanigans."
I'm still waiting for a coherent reason why you want this to happen, by the way. I bring it up again because every time I do I get a different answer. I'm curious as to what your response will be this time.
=Smidge=