Re: Another proposal.
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.