Talk:Abstention

message: "An abstention may be used to indicate the voting individual's ambivalence about the measure, or mild disapproval that does not rise to the level of active opposition."
I feel like a third case is not covered here: Mild approval that does not rise to the level of full support. Or does "abstention" only cover mild disapproval?
It can definitely apply to both, though it is probably more common to disagree with the motion or legislation and abstain rather than vote it down. People may abstain for a whole host of reasons - perhaps they agree (or disagree) with the policy but their position differs from what their political party or constituents want. Perhaps they participated in drafting the legislation so they don't want to give it a full "no" vote. Often it is less of a reflection of ambivalence and more about relieving the voter of political liability later on. Chursaner (talk) 17:07, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition does not cover all aspects 

message: Several errors were made in the calculations and numbers I removed. Specifically, removing the "white votes" from the totals of both Chirac and Le Pen as was done is faulty. Here are the correct percentages, with source totals from the official government source at 
Inscrits  	41 192 272	      	
Abstention	8 359 440 	20.29%	of Inscrits
Votants   	32 832 832	79.71%	of Inscrits
Exprimés  	31 062 928	75.41%	of Inscrits
          	          	94.61%	of Votants
"Blancs"  	1 769 904 	4.30% 	of Inscrits
          	          	5.39% 	of Votants
Chirac    	25 537 894	62.00%	of Inscrits
          	          	77.78%	of Votants
          	          	82.21%	of Exprimés
Le Pen    	5 525 034 	13.41%	of Inscrits
          	          	16.83%	of Votants
          	          	17.79%	of Exprimés
As you can see, these numbers don't match those I removed from the article. For example, Chirac had votes in his favour from 62.00% of electors, not 61.23, and Le Pen had the support of 13.41% of the electors, not 9.98%. 198.96.36.131 (talk) 07:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bad calculations removed 

message: I'm not sure why the 2002 French elections are a good example of abstention.  In the first round of voting there was 71% turnout and then in the second round 79%.  How can this be abstention if turnout is higher?  I understand there was a lot of protest about the choices in the second round.  Can someone explain this to me?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iacchus (talk • contribs) 19:13, 8 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the example was included because of the campaign of the left to create "white ballots" (i.e. blank or spoilt ballots). Over 5% of the ballots were spoilt, which is certainly high. Sunray (talk) 07:38, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relevance of French example questioned 

message: During the second round of the 2002 French presidential election, French citizens could vote for either Jacques Chirac (leader of the right-wing UMP) or Jean-Marie Le Pen (leader of the far-right National Front).  The left-wing, usually represented by the three main parties Socialist Party, Communist Party and Greens, were beaten in the first turn by Chirac and Le Pen.
Citizens had four options:
*vote for Chirac, as Chirac's party and most of the left-wing parties called for.  This is what 82.21% of the people who voted a legitimate vote did, not counting abstention nor White votes;
*vote for Le Pen, as his followers called for or as some rare advocates of the politique du pire ("politics of the worst") called for, hoping this would lead to a serious political crisis (17.79% of the people who voted a legitimate vote chose Le Pen);
*abstain from voting, which 20.29% of the people did;
*cast a blank vote by deliberately spoiling or refrain from marking the ballot, found in 5.39% of the ballots.
Thus, during the two turns of the election, some left-wing radicals had called for a massive abstention and/or a massive white votes: instead of giving 82.21% to Chirac against 17.79% to Le Pen at the second turn, they would have rather counted a mass of left-wing "white votes" which would have put into question the democratic legitimacy of the election. Under French law, nothing would have happened since abstentions and blank votes do not count—Chirac wasn't elected with 82.21% support from the French population but with 82.21% support from the people who went to vote and didn't cast a "white" vote.
Chursaner (talk) 21:23, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: An example: the 2002 French presidential election

message: Whilst listening to an edition of Today in Parliament the idea of "active abstention" was talked about. This is the fact that members of parliament here in the UK when voting on legislation can vote both "yes" and "no" at the same time, therefore making it as if they had not voted at all. Is there some way of including this into the article? Or maybe there's another name for it I'm not aware of that's already around? JoshuaJohnLee talk softly, please 14:48, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active abstention. 

message: All three of these articles are about the same subject: not voting. As such, I recommend that Anti-voting and Non-voting be merged here. Neelix (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger with [[Anti-voting]] and [[Non-voting]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Abstention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120425232045/http://bulgaria.indymedia.org/article/38091 to http://bulgaria.indymedia.org/article/38091
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:59, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Abstention. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090425165902/http://antieviction.org.za/2005/12/12/indymedia-presents-no-land-no-house-no-vote/ to http://antieviction.org.za/2005/12/12/indymedia-presents-no-land-no-house-no-vote/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:28, 30 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Where can we place a point about countries that use negative parliamentarism such as Sweden where in votes of confidence for a Prime Minister, a vote to abstain has the same effect as a 'yes' vote in terms of attempting to block the number of 'no' votes required to unseat a prime minister or disapprove of a prime ministerial candidate? --193.180.119.2 (talk) 21:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Negative parliamentarism 

message: The word "abstentious" is one of two English words to contain all 5 vowels in order (alongside facetious)
Is that worth a footnote somewhere? 2A00:23C5:A117:D001:8826:C98A:78F3:8E36 (talk) 09:01, 21 September 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vowels