Hi Roy!

Thursday April 27 2006, Roy Witt wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 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 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.

 RW> 8.6 refers to voting on policy changes, not elections.

No, 8.7.2 have link to 8.6 - so quorum is not exist for election ZC.

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

All elections in our region have make to this principle - all sysops voting.
We have not "write" Regional Policy, but we have it "in the
head".

 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.

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

What do you think that FIDO is democratic :-) ? I think that FIDO is
"constitution monarchy" (by Policy as Constitution) :-( .

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

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

I know it. But in the Zone he not use this principle (this is disadvantage
to him). Dual standarts :-) !

 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.

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

For it need as minimum starting of election, that he is not want.

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326