[aur-general] voting period for Dave Reisner

Shacristo shacristo at gmail.com
Sun Dec 5 13:45:17 EST 2010

On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Kaiting Chen <kaitocracy at gmail.com> wrote:
>> We could amend the bylaws to state that quorum is not required if an
>> absolute
>> 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.
>> If
>> one were opposed to the motion, it would be more beneficial to simply not
>> vote
>> at all and to hope that others do the same so that quorum cannot be
>> established.
> 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
> happen.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum
> 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/

Isn't this why the automatic motion for removal exists?  If a TU
abuses the quorum system he could be removed for inactivity.

More information about the aur-general mailing list