Re: Another proposal.

["John H. Robinson, IV" <jhriv@ucsd.edu>]

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.

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.

i had always understood quorum as the minimum number of participants to
conduct business.

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?

-john

i may spell quorum wrong, but at least i am consistent (too lazy to do a
:%s/quorom/quorum)