response 75 of 118:

Feb 10 17:50 UTC 2006

So you'll end up with a perennial candidate who runs on a platform of
"don't vote for me, I'm only here to make the election legitimate."

response 77 of 118:

Feb 10 19:07 UTC 2006

You can't have an election determined by proclamation, since that would
prevent the opportunity for write-in candidates.

response 79 of 118:

Feb 10 20:20 UTC 2006

 re #78:  I was one of the additional nominees and I can assure you, I saw
 my nomination.  However, I had just declined another nomination only a few
 weeks before and saw no need to issue a second refusal.

response 81 of 118:

Feb 10 22:37 UTC 2006

Other,  your "logical assumptions" are wrong.  Why would one logically run
for an office when one lives a thousand miles away and has no conceivable way
of ever attending a board meeting in person?  That doesn't mean that one can't
care about the process, and the legitimacy of the process.  

I ask again, how few is too few?  If only remmers and jan voted in this
election, and elected themselves, is that tantamount to a mandate from grex's
membership that they be on the board?  Why were the quorum requirements
rescinded in the first place?  Was the board too lazy to do mass mailings and
push members to vote?  It wouldn't be so hard to get the extra ten votes
needed to get over forty percent would it, if the board was working toward
that goal.

I think the quorum requirements were restricted because the board had no
interest in pushing its own members to be active in the organization.  So lets
eliminate quorum rules altogether, so the FEW can guarantee elections without
needing the MANY.  I ask again, HOW FEW IS TOO FEW?  

response 83 of 118:

Feb 10 22:52 UTC 2006

I suggest a sliding quorum requirement.  For the initial election, make the
quorum 40%, if a second election is needed, reduce quorum to thirty five
percent, if a third, thirty percent.  You'd still get to the point where an
election could take place with less than a quarter turnout, but not right away
and not easily.  

response 85 of 118:

Feb 11 03:30 UTC 2006

 re #81:
 > Why would one logically run for an office when one lives a thousand
 > miles away and has no conceivable way of ever attending a board meeting
 > in person?

 I'll admit that distance was a factor that led me to refuse nomination
 but bhoward finds the time to volunteer on the board and attends meetings
 via videoconference from Tokyo.

response 87 of 118:

Feb 13 18:00 UTC 2006

I have nothing to say, but I am posting anyway, because I think the
subject under discussion is every bit as important as voting in an
uncontested election.  I call for all Grexers to stand firm in the
preservation of that greatest of all Grex traditions, pointless
activity.

response 89 of 118:

Feb 13 19:50 UTC 2006

Grex Error Alerts have been raised to color code chartreuse..

response 91 of 118:

Feb 14 15:26 UTC 2006

#87 jan, you'd call quorums pointless until grex is taken over by a fringe
element that gets its people elected to the board with half a dozen votes
because there is no quorum and nobody cares.  Radicals get elected in
societies with no quorums.

response 93 of 118:

Feb 14 16:20 UTC 2006

just because the results now are acceptable doesn't mean they will always be,
someday some twit is going to get elected to grex's board with eight votes.

response 95 of 118:

Feb 14 17:49 UTC 2006

If the Grex Board gets overrun by ninnies, then we'll all find 
something else to do with our time beside spending it on Grex.

response 97 of 118:

Feb 14 21:48 UTC 2006

 re #91, 93:  In other words, your nobleminded proposals are really
 intended to alter the system to ensure that a majority of voters
 never elects candidates who are unacceptable to you?

response 99 of 118:

Feb 14 22:11 UTC 2006

or the one.