On Sat, 11 Jan 2014, omd wrote: > On Sat, Jan 11, 2014 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > >> To me, this implies that only an eligible voter can "vote on", but it > >> may be invalid for another reason. > > > > So an eligible voter voting CREAMPUFF counts towards quorum, but a > > non-eligible voter's "votes" don't. Makes sense. > > > > Which means, in passing, that AGAINT is now a synonym for PRESENT... > > Only for the purposes of calculating next week's quorum.
Point taken. > Though I'm not sure if casting an invalid vote is "voting". Well, see, that's the question I'm trying to resolve. So any particular arguments? The issue is that the rules implicitly recognize attempts to vote by eligible voters as "ballots" which can be either valid or invalid (rather than saying the attempt to vote fails under certain conditions). So given that invalid ballots are (implicitly) a thing that has been cast, is casting one "voting"? An example outside of Quorum: Let's say I have a voting power of 2 on a proposal. What f I say "I vote 1xCREAMPUFF, then 1xCREAMPUFF, then 1xFOR": If the first two are ballots, it "uses up" the 2 votes, and my FOR doesn't count. If those 2 used up my voting power, they must have been a vote of some kind! On the other hand, if the first two just plain fail, then my FOR vote would count. I think our rules interpretation supports that the CREAMPUFF votes "use up" the voting power, so these would be "votes" of some kind! -G.
