On Tue, May 20, 2003 at 02:39:08PM -0700, John H. Robinson, IV wrote: > example: quorum of 20, two ballots on the measure, plus the default > option. two major schools of thought: those that support option A, and > those that support option B.
If the quorum of 20 is significant, neither school of thought is "major". Perhaps "detectable" would be a better adjective. > > * For example: > > > > quorum: 20 > > > > developer has reason to believe that not many votes will be cast. > > developer has reason to believe that the few votes which will be > > cast will be in favor of an option which developer is opposed to. > > > > Casting ballot against that option might cause ballot to achieve > > quorum. > > this is a strawman, because if <R people vote, then no option will > achieve the R+1>default per-item quota. Expressed in terms of scenario: A vs B, quorum 20 Case 1: 15 ABD D wins Case 2: 15 ABD 8 BDA A wins Here, the vote(s) for B caused A to win. Other examples are possible (for example: 19 ABD, 1 BDA). > > To make your proposal work right, we'd need a separate quorum > > determination phase which is independent of the voting phase. > > i fail to see that argument. See above. -- Raul