[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote:
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).

I think you are misunderstanding the suggestion.

The way quorum usually works in face-to-face meeting is that the deliberative body cannot come to a decision without a quorum. If a vote is held and then it is discovered that there was not quorum at the time of the vote, then the vote is discarded. No option wins, no option is defeated.

In the case that John Robinson mentioned, if the quorum is 72, and 70 people vote, there is no quorum, so all 70 ballots are discarded and the vote is null and void.

I read his suggestion as extending that to Debian voting procedure. He would have quorum measured not on an option-by-option basis, but on a total-ballot basis. Too few valid ballots received nullifies the vote. If enough valid ballots are received by the deadline, then the vote is binding, regardles of the number of people who voted for (or against) any particular option.

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.

Reply to: