Geir Magnusson Jr. wrote:
>
> Once solution, which I proposed last week, was to change and base the
vote
> results on the number of people that *actually* vote, not the number
> *possible* votes, because that will be hopeless. I think we should have
a
> minimum number of votes ( 4? 5? something reasonable...), and you must
have
> 75% +1's of the total vote or something.
I'd recomment a min of 3 "+1" votes.
This is consistent with other voting practices, and would avoid the edge
case where there is three "+1" votes, and it would take another vote - even
a "-1" to meet the rules you describe above.
- Sam Ruby
