What does majority rule mean?

[Popes]

In section "14E. Major Rules Changes", the rules currently use this wording for majority rule: "if a majority of clubs vote yes".

Does that mean the majority of all existing clubs (12), so you need 7 for any vote to pass? Or does it mean the majority of voting clubs, so if 11 vote, 6 wins?

I think it's ambiguous and I'd like to clarify it before it comes up as a problem. Based on the conversation the Dodgers and I had regarding this today, this should be contentious. I'd like to hear some opinions before posting a poll.

Personally, I prefer majority of clubs voting. Last year, Highlanders were an absentee franchise that did not vote. If we go with majority of 12, then he's counting as an automatic NO vote for everything. If the other 11 teams that actually participate decide, by a 6-5 vote, that they want to change something, then I think the majority voting should rule.

Bear in mind that in polls with 3 or more options, the absentee owner is an even bigger detriment, as it's that much harder to get to 7 votes when fighting against two other options. If the 11 active members decide 6-3-2 on an issue, that should be a change.

Also, counting only votes cast allows teams to abstain if they have good reason to (say you have a conflict, so you let the rest of the league decide - your abstaining should not count as a NO).

Thoughts? Arguments the other way? [nudging Dodgers]

[Nittany Dodgers]

I have a few arguments in favor of a "majority of teams in the league" stance. First, I believe that in most cases, all teams should be heard from on all issues. I'm sure there are certain circumstances in which teams feel they should abstain, and those are a vast minority of situations. Most of the time, we are talking about a personal preference for one choice or another. I think all teams should be active in making those types of decisions.

If we only require a majority of teams voting, to what extent are we going to allow teams not to vote? What about the off season, where most issues are decided, and some teams are reluctant to frequent the boards? Should the important off season decisions be decided only by the 6-10 teams that spend significant time on the boards? When teams stop showing up, stop paying attention, and stop voting, they become disillusioned from the league, and we get lazy owners.

Also, if we are only going with a majority of votes cast, what's the minimum number of votes we'll allow to pass something? As the rules state, anyone can bring an issue to vote. Let's take this to the logical extreme, if there are only five people paying attention at some point in the off season, are we going to allow a rule change pass on a 3-2 vote?

We can make carve outs for all these circumstances, but I think it is just most simple to answer all the questions requiring a majority of teams in the league. Close vote, and someone not voting? Swing them to your side.

Lastly, in a situation like Smitty abandoning the league, I think the bigger issue should be addressing that fact first. If his absense is preventing something from being done, then I think that is a drastic enough situation to compel us to get the absentee owner to the boards, or to replace him before going too far down the road.

[Royal Hawaiian Opihi]

I would think it would be majority of total teams. And yes, we do need to keep on track of "absentee" owners better. Finally, if it's a vote that directly involves one specific team, and it's not proper for that owner to vote, then it should become majority out of 11. Just my thoughts.

[Amish]

I also like the majority of the entire league. I have the same opinion as that of Opihi with the issue of one specific team. That owner should not count as part of the vote or majority.

[Mutts]

I agree, majority of entire league for the reasons stated above.

[Popes]

It appears I'll go down in a flaming wreck when I put this up for a vote. Anyone else agree with me?

BTW, I just made a point over in the "Re-align divisions?" thread:

http://www.predsff.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11969

The possiblities there illustrate my point. It seems to be an issue where people can reasonably want to abstain (or vote "don't care") and not have their vote count at all: they'd like to leave it up to the people who have opinions on the issue. Under the majority of 12 rule, they have to be convinced to vote Yes in order for a change to take place.

I know Brian's counter-argument is that if 7 people don't actively want change, then there shouldn't be a change: your argument for change is simply not strong enough to sway enough people.

But look at the other half of the coin: those who don't want change. What if there aren't any? What if 6 want new divisions and 6 just flat out don't care either which way. That's an overwhelming argument for change. But it loses under the majority of 12 rule. It passes (6-0) under the majority of votes cast rule.

I know Brian brought up some points I'd have to address if my side actually won out (what's the minimum?; what to do about times when people don't frequent the boards?). I don't have answers on those right now and since it's looking like a landslide here, I'm not going to bother exploring them.

Also, I don't think it's possible to do a carve-out for a vote that "directly involves" one team. That would be a nightmare to deal with every situation and be arguing about the meaning of "directly involves". If we're moving to majority of 12, I think it needs to always be majority of 12.

[Nittany Dodgers]

Originally Posted by Popes

But look at the other half of the coin: those who don't want change. What if there aren't any? What if 6 want new divisions and 6 just flat out don't care either which way. That's an overwhelming argument for change. But it loses under the majority of 12 rule. It passes (6-0) under the majority of votes cast rule.

If the emotional appeals of the six who want change can't convince just one of the appathetic six to bother to vote on their side, I'm fine with the change not happening, generally speaking.