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

Re: Another proposal.

Raul Miller wrote:
Raul Miller wrote:

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.

John H. Robinson, IV wrote:

i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes
the vote to be binding.

On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 03:50:10PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:

I agree with John.

Can you explain what he's saying in a meaningful fashion?  [It looks to me
like he's contradicting himself, but apparently you have a self-consistent
way of interpreting what he's saying?]


In the case you mentioned, sentiment is for the proposal, so the option should win -- assuming the vote is binding. If there are enough total ballots to meet quorum, the vote is binding. If there aren't enough total ballots to meet quorum, the vote shouldn't be binding.

Quorum is traditionally a way to determine if there is sufficient participation in the deliberations to make any decision binding on the organization making the decision. If too few people actually return a ballot, then too few people participated in the decision-making process for the decision to be valid.

You (and Matthias) seem to be assuming that if quorum isn't reached, then the ballot measures should be shot down. I and John are saying that if quorum isn't reached, then the trigger hasn't been pulled yet (to stretch a metaphor).

But that is making a binding decision based on a lack of quorum. That goes against what quorum is usually used for.

You are also applying quorum requirements to individual options on the ballot, rather than the vote as a whole. I've rarely seen that use of a quorum in the past.

Would you be satisfied if the too-small minority were unable to get their way by not voting, but would only serve to delay the final approval of the supermajority option, by forcing another vote?

In otherwords, if X (the number of ballots) < Q (quorum), then the results of the vote is non-binding. It doesn't even need to be computed, since it doesn't matter which option won.

If X > Q, then the vote is binding, and we go with whatever option won after applying supermajority and Condorcet/CpSSD procedures.

That is in line with how I would normally interpret a quorum.

Reply to: