Received: from localhost ([::1]:46761 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8V0E-00030y-Ig; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 06:20:58 -0800 Received: from mail-yh0-f44.google.com ([209.85.213.44]:40505) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1:RC4-SHA:128) (Exim 4.80.1) (envelope-from ) id 1Y8V0C-00030j-7G for llg-members@lojban.org; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 06:20:57 -0800 Received: by mail-yh0-f44.google.com with SMTP id c41so11451551yho.31 for ; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 06:20:50 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=yWi4QZliWlD5SlpakA2fudGRuxVj+fEkq1wpYXM6+Oc=; b=blK+rhAYyTRi1jf+gfUG6d/3IV7D6M76ADVZzbpoIzCp704crll8FEtGMr1IxKVAdz ZFTPC0Z0n3CdxcSK0xYyEZCbvXn29uqDnzvWJEndVujURlLqlTFick9vA64YiaxpWuuM ctF32U52eq3qvBDZNlm9p3vsf69+dHMd1luA3AnHAwj2UeRtmKzOnFofyTL1yHGhtc02 YV1taIhXu6hrrbUmEEw27zK9Gmm6UyUkVvrjxRiHfZrVPrrZvJ+go2aCvIbAWCoeGg7M LPpiV8J7ujWMI9d6QO5UauYEhRRrY1g6wzQqfCmVDjCz+7BfZC5UYCOdEf4p52xYzwhp //qw== X-Received: by 10.170.70.193 with SMTP id m184mr69632561ykm.50.1420554049771; Tue, 06 Jan 2015 06:20:49 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <54A85D69.7060907@lojban.org> <20150105060423.GA11663@mercury.ccil.org> <20150106003519.GB16715@mercury.ccil.org> <20150106130345.GA16334@mercury.ccil.org> From: Craig Daniel Date: Tue, 06 Jan 2015 14:20:49 +0000 Message-ID: To: llg-members@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [Llg-members] Results of Board Voting X-BeenThere: llg-members@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.18-1 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-members@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============4175885488949647262==" Errors-To: llg-members-bounces@lojban.org --===============4175885488949647262== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a11391b84855fca050bfc836e --001a11391b84855fca050bfc836e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On Tue Jan 06 2015 at 8:03:59 AM John Cowan wrote: > And Rosta scripsit: > > > Could we alter the by-laws so that Board members are simply elected by > > approval voting, electing either the n candidates with the most votes or > > all candidates voted for by more than half of the electors? (Say, the > three > > candidates with the most votes, plus all candidates voted for by more > than > > half of the electors.) > > (General point.) > > I have never understood the desire to alter the default standard of > "a majority of the legal votes cast" to "a majority of the members", > but it seems to be extremely common in organizations. Are people worried > that a tiny minority of the membership will be all that bothers to vote, > and so members or directors or officers will be chosen by a vote of 2 to 1 > or something? People generally show up and usually vote, and if not, > that is why quorum rules exist. > I think that's precisely the concern. But I think the bigger danger is of being stalled by the absence of members, so I strongly prefer either a majority of valid votes or, possibly, a majority of members *present* (at meetings like ours which take roll). Despite my usual ability to get into detailed election geekery (and thus my willingness to support any proposed bylaw change, if somebody wants to write something up to have on the agenda next year) I don't see where the current system has ever steered us wrong, in the roughly two contested board elections we've had, and see no urgent need to change it. (I'll note that those of us who concentrated our vote in only the people we felt most strongly about could have caused, at worst, a smaller-than-maximal board, which the bylaws make it clear isn't even a problem and which didn't occur in this case.) - .kreig. --001a11391b84855fca050bfc836e Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On Tue Jan 06 2015 at 8:03:59 AM John Cowan <= cowan@mercury.ccil.org> wr= ote:
And Rosta scripsit:

> Could we alter the by-laws so that Board members are simply elected by=
> approval voting, electing either the n candidates with the most votes = or
> all candidates voted for by more than half of the electors? (Say, the = three
> candidates with the most votes, plus all candidates voted for by more = than
> half of the electors.)

(General point.)

I have never understood the desire to alter the default standard of
"a majority of the legal votes cast" to "a majority of the m= embers",
but it seems to be extremely common in organizations.=C2=A0 Are people worr= ied
that a tiny minority of the membership will be all that bothers to vote, and so members or directors or officers will be chosen by a vote of 2 to 1<= br> or something?=C2=A0 People generally show up and usually vote, and if not,<= br> that is why quorum rules exist.
=C2=A0
I thi= nk that's precisely the concern. But I think the bigger danger is of be= ing stalled by the absence of members, so I strongly prefer either a majori= ty of valid votes or, possibly, a majority of members *present* (at meeting= s like ours which take roll).

Despite my usual abi= lity to get into detailed election geekery (and thus my willingness to supp= ort any proposed bylaw change, if somebody wants to write something up to h= ave on the agenda next year) I don't see where the current system has e= ver steered us wrong, in the roughly two contested board elections we'v= e had, and see no urgent need to change it. (I'll note that those of us= who concentrated our vote in only the people we felt most strongly about c= ould have caused, at worst, a smaller-than-maximal board, which the bylaws = make it clear isn't even a problem and which didn't occur in this c= ase.)

=C2=A0- .kreig.
--001a11391b84855fca050bfc836e-- --===============4175885488949647262== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ Llg-members mailing list Llg-members@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-members --===============4175885488949647262==--