Re: [ga-full] Voting regimes

["Michael Froomkin - U.Miami School of Law" <froomkin@law.miami.edu>]

On Mon, 10 Apr 2000, Harald Tveit Alvestrand wrote:

>- The chair approves a ballot to be sent to the membership

Does this mean that the chair has a veto?  Under what circumstances can
the chair refuse his/her approval?

> - In the case where the question is a rule change, the number of votes
>    cast must be at least half of the membership.

I object to this when applied to rules that were not adopted with this
requirement.  It entrenches the current rules which were adopted in the
face of a very small and very split vote.  Further, as the membership
grows there is not telling what turnout will be.

I also object to this when applied to any vote: If people don't care
enough to vote, that should not be counted as a "no" vote against any
change.

How about a much lower threshold please?

>The idea behind the last one is that if most of the membership doesn't
>like a result, they can request a new ballot. But a change of rules may
>close this option, so it should be more difficult to do that. 

If the chair has a veto, this seems a trivial danger.  If the chair does
not have a veto, I think a lower threshhold will at least blunt the
problem.

Or, perhaps the chair should have the ability to say that rules changes
which would limit participation should be subject to a minimum
participation rule, but not those which enhance them.  Then, for example,
votes to impose list moderation would require a high turnout, but not
those to remove it? ;>

-- 

A. Michael Froomkin   |    Professor of Law    |   froomkin@law.tm
U. Miami School of Law, P.O. Box 248087, Coral Gables, FL 33124 USA
+1 (305) 284-4285  |  +1 (305) 284-6506 (fax)  |  http://www.law.tm
                        -->It's warm here.<--



--
This message was passed to you via the ga-full@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-full" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html