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

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote:
> >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).

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 02:21:05PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> 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.

That's the way I read his suggestion, also.  And that's what I was saying
is bad.  I don't think you understood my objection.

Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
and therefore cause the option to win.  This discourages sincere votes
against the option.


Reply to: