27 Apr 06 10:36, Vladimir Donskoy wrote to Roy Witt:

 VD>>> For example: now is election on NC 2:5020 - one of the largest
 VD>>> network on world, near 600 nodes. Now we have 106 votes after first
 VD>>> week (theoretical full will near 150 votes - big percent)... Or
 VD>>> other
 VD>>> example: I make election REC 2:50 by NCs and NECs on 2003 - total
 VD>>> 172 sysops, and I has only 43 vote! So - even living working
 VD>>> controlling sysops are passive on elections (and referendum too).
 VD>>> Or example by another region - I make election (as vote-checker) on
 VD>>> RC 2:45 on 2004 year, and from 360 nodes I has 49 votes.

 RW>> But the question remains; did those votes count as they should, or
 RW>> was the election stalled because there wasn't a majority turnout of
 RW>> voters?

 VD> Read Policy 8.6 - it is not require quorum! So - all this elections
 VD> are realized.

8.6 refers to voting on policy changes, not elections.  An election as
you've described above would be administered under a region policy.
If R50? doesn't have a region policy, there are plenty of examples in Z1
that can be used as a reference to make your region policy. Z1's R12, R13
and R18 all have a very good example and select their RC in this way by
votes from every sysop in the region who wishes to participate in that
election.  I have a copy of each just for the asking.

 RW>> In the real world, the votes would be tallied and the election
 RW>> finished.

 RW>> In Doosche's world, the election would be a failure because there
 RW>> wasn't a majority turnout.

 VD> Policy require majority votes for start elections and sample count
 VD> votes on election process result.

Policy says that only RCs can vote for the ZC, but in a democratic
Fidonet, that isn't how it works anymore. In Z1, every sysop is elegible
to vote. However, their RC has the vote per policy, but the RC's vote is
weighted by the majority of their sysops vote.

 VD>  "Weight" of the vote isn't count by Policy :-( .

LOL! The point of the matter is, that's the opposite of what your ZC
claimed. He made an attempt to continue as IC after another was
elected by the ZCC, with the idea that the most populated zone has a
weighted vote and 86% of that zone says he's still the IC. Completely
against what policy says.

 VD>  Therefore a logical conclusion - it means existence of regions (and
 VD> networks) about the identical size that we and achieve in a new own
 VD> zone.

But the idea here is to use his own "Weighted" thinking against him and
elect a ZC by a majority vote of *all* sysops in the largest region of Z2.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000