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.