Raul Miller wrote: > > On the other hand, we've never had an official vote which was even close > > to failing to meet our quorum requirement.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 10:01:01AM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > let me see if i undserstand this quorom thing: > > we want to know that a significant portion of the electorate care enough > to represent themselves. > > so would not the quorum be the simple number of votes cast? > > if the quorum is 72, and seventy people vote, then quorom is not met, > and the vote is invalidated on those grounds. regardless if all vote ABF > and thus A has supermajority (at any ratio) over B and F. That would be bad. If you do it this way, there are circumstances where a vote against an option may cause that option to win (because without that vote the option wouldn't have met quorum). > also, with the Condorcet + SSD election method, is the supermajority > requirements really required? it does allow a vocal minority to block an > action. is that desired? if so, why? The supermajority requirements give you a (relatively) stable frame of reference to reason against. Thinking about voting in a context where it's just as easy to change the voting system as it is to change what the voting system is being used to decide is... rather difficult. -- Raul -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
