Hello Joe.

19 Apr 06 20:19, you wrote to me:

 >>  >> A quorum prevents such a "coup".
 >>
 >>  JD> It did not do so in the case of FN_Sysop though.

And would not have if there was one because a substantial (nearky all) of
th elegible voters turned up.

 >> There was no quorum in the case of effie.

 JD> In that case the vote was invalidated then.

Why? if there had been a quorum it would have been met.

 >> JD> If you are going to do the above, then it is easy enough to
 >> JD> get enough people together to make a quorum.

 >> No, it isn't. Try to get 30% of the members of the Trenton Amateur
 >> Radio Clu to an early general assembly....

 JD> Can be done.

Of course it can be done. The objective of a quorum is not to make things
impossible. Just to prevent a small minority fron sneaking things through.

 JD> However the point I am trying to make is that if you really want, you
 JD> can assemble enough people of like mind to form a quorum,

But you can not do it in secrecy. You have to make "noise" and
that prevents a situation where a minority gets his way while the mayority
wasn't even aware something was going on.

 JD> and still get your way.

Of course. The point being that you have to assemble enough people. And
than if you get the majority of those you assemble to agree with you, yes
then you get yor way. That is democracy.

 >>  JD> Thus whatever safeguards you thought you had, are lost.
 >>
 >> Your premise is wrong and therefore so is your conclusion.

 JD> Apperently not.

You fail to understand. The safeguards are not against someone getting his
way. The safeguerds are against a small group of dissidents getting there
way by manipulation in secrecy.


Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315