[aur-general] voting period for Dave Reisner
kaitocracy at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 19:31:32 CET 2010
> We could amend the bylaws to state that quorum is not required if an
> majority has voted to pass the motion (an absolute majority being more than
> half of all active TUs). I think that makes sense because as it stands now,
> voting against the motion or simply abstaining is completely meaningless.
> one were opposed to the motion, it would be more beneficial to simply not
> at all and to hope that others do the same so that quorum cannot be
This is basically what I've been spamming aur-general with. I did some
research today and it appears that what you are talking about actually does
When a vote is decided, politicians will sometimes abuse the quorum system
to try to manipulate the result. --Kaiting.
Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/
More information about the aur-general