[aur-general] voting period for Dave Reisner
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
>> 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/
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