On Friday 31 January 2003 14:07, Berin Loritsch wrote: > Niclas Hedhman wrote: > > People, use some logic here... > > > > The fact that a 50% quorum is required, and the vote will automatically > > fail if a qurom is not reached, it is better for the "opposition" not to > > vote at all, than vote -1. There are almost always someone > > "lazy"/"vacation"/"sick" that is unable to vote, which then is a indirect > > vote against, if the "opposition" refrains from voting. > > > > Clear? > > In Avalon, where the voting procedures came from, there was a larger > problem than apathy. Those issues have to a large part been resolved, > and I will not dig them up here. > > Suffice it to say: > > The Cocoon PMC members who have volunteered for the job, are responsible > to respond to PMC votes. It is also *very* important to have a concept > where we are not sneaky. We say what we mean, and we mean what we say.
Ok, just showing a bug in the design... ;o) I also hope that there won't be a problem, but let me give an absurd example; In the late 60's a new one-chamber parliment constitution was designed in Sweden, consisting of "majority votes" and 350 delegates. It went into practice in 1970 election, and in 1973 election the "design flaw" surfaced. Two blocks of parties with 175 votes each, and for 3 years all major issues were decided by "lucky draw". I'm not sure, but I think they even broke the constitution when they changed the number of delegates to 349 to the next election (changes to the constitution must be ratified by 3 elected parliments (2 elections) or something like that), to avoid this circus in the future. Niclas --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, email: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
