-=> On 12-25-03  18:12,  Thom Lacosta <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Proposal <=-

 TL> Dale Shipp wrote in a message to Michael Grant:
 
 DS>    In both the current policy and in the new proposal the RCs
 DS> decide    whether or not to have a referendum.  What is being
 DS> changed there is    to lower the quorum requirement from what is
 DS> effectively 100% to    something lower.  

 TL> Please help me understand the new math.  If you're talking about the
 TL> number  of RCs needed to decide whether or not something gets 
 TL> forwarded to the IC to be placed on referendum, I believe 
 TL> current policy calls for a majority.

 TL> If a simple majority is 51 percent or even 50 percent plus 
 TL> 1, I am mystified how that's effectively 100 percent.

 TL> Looking forward to the math lesson.

  Glad to oblige -- here is the reasoning that says that the current
  policy is *effectively* a quorum requirement of 100%.

  The requirement at current is for a majority of *ALL* RCs.  There are
  58 RCs.   That means that passage requires 30 YES votes.  Because the
  requirement is for a majority of *ALL* RCs, it is effectively the same
  as when all have voted --- either YES or NO (with those not voting
  assumed to be NO votes).  That is why I say it is effectively a 100%
  quorum requirement.

  If we had a quorum requirement of 50%, then passage would mean that a
  majority of the RCs responding would carry the motion to referendum --
  but only if at least 29 (i.e. 50% of 58) actually responded to cast a
  vote.

                        dale (at) min (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:56:24, 25 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01