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

Re: supermajority options

On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 12:04:34AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> Also, what do you think of imposing some kind of quorum requirement
> (like maybe 1% of the voters need to vote in an election which changes
> the constitution, or some other such thing quite a bit more severe for
> our current set of developers than that of any draft I've proposed)?

If we would require a quorum (in the sense of Anthony Towns draft,
i.e. we would require some minimal total number of votes) INSTEAD
of a supermajority, I would like this:

1) Implementing a quorum seems to have a lower risk of damaging
   Condorcet voting, than the discussed supermajority strategies have.

2) We control the set of voters via the NM process, so we may hope that
   voters know what they are doing.  And if a majority of voters is
   convinced that we should do something, it will make sense, won't it?


Attachment: pgpTcmEgWjKiw.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: