On Sun, Dec 5, 2010 at 1:31 PM, Kaiting Chen <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> We could amend the bylaws to state that quorum is not required if an >> absolute >> majority has voted to pass the motion (an absolute majority being more than >> half of all active TUs). I think that makes sense because as it stands now, >> voting against the motion or simply abstaining is completely meaningless. >> If >> one were opposed to the motion, it would be more beneficial to simply not >> vote >> at all and to hope that others do the same so that quorum cannot be >> established. >> > > This is basically what I've been spamming aur-general with. I did some > research today and it appears that what you are talking about actually does > happen. > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quorum > > When a vote is decided, politicians will sometimes abuse the quorum system > to try to manipulate the result. --Kaiting. > > -- > Kiwis and Limes: http://kaitocracy.blogspot.com/ >
Isn't this why the automatic motion for removal exists? If a TU abuses the quorum system he could be removed for inactivity.
