I Like the Quorum

[Oddball]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

 

[Trajan]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

sounds like a union racket, only in reverse...

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Oregon has such a law regarding tax increases. The politicians hate it. They have tried to gut it over and over.

It is very popular here. Among the non politicians.

 

[percysunshine]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

You could go many places with that concept. First impression...incumbents would love it because disuading people from voting would mean they could not be voted out of office. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be no more politicians...well...the anarchists would love that. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be automatic incumbant re-election...you would have Libya.

Tough choice.

 

[Big Fitz]

I also like the Russian ballot that has "none of the above", which forces a run off election with all new candidates in 60 days.

 

[Oddball]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

You could go many places with that concept. First impression...incumbents would love it because disuading people from voting would mean they could not be voted out of office. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be no more politicians...well...the anarchists would love that. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be automatic incumbant re-election...you would have Libya.

Tough choice.

No default to the incumbent or challenger...No quorum, no valid election.

If neither can motivate enough voters to cast a ballot for them, they deserve to lose.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

Mossouri has a quorum rule on Judicial elections. They have to get approval from 60% of the electorate, or they are turned out and a new election called for new judges happens.

 

[skeptic]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

I was thinking the same thought 20 years ago.

 

[percysunshine]

So, let's extend this quorum concept to voting.

If you can't get 55% of registered voters to cast a ballot, there is no quorum.

Election doesn't count.

Discuss.

You could go many places with that concept. First impression...incumbents would love it because disuading people from voting would mean they could not be voted out of office. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be no more politicians...well...the anarchists would love that. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be automatic incumbant re-election...you would have Libya.

Tough choice.

No default to the incumbent or challenger...No quorum, no valid election.

If neither can motivate enough voters to cast a ballot for them, they deserve to lose.

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

 

[Oddball]

You could go many places with that concept. First impression...incumbents would love it because disuading people from voting would mean they could not be voted out of office. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be no more politicians...well...the anarchists would love that. If the default of the lack of voter quorum would be automatic incumbant re-election...you would have Libya.

Tough choice.

No default to the incumbent or challenger...No quorum, no valid election.

If neither can motivate enough voters to cast a ballot for them, they deserve to lose.

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

False dichotomy. False presumption.

Try again.

 

[skeptic]

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

None of the above. If a true majority will not show up to vote for the POS on the ballot, then just leave the office empty and have an election every other month until a candidate surfaces who can get out the vote.

 

[percysunshine]

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

None of the above. If a true majority will not show up to vote for the POS on the ballot, then just leave the office empty and have an election every other month until a candidate surfaces who can get out the vote.

That was what I said. Empty office. No more voting on issues put before the people. Kind of like Democrats from Wisconsin.

 

[percysunshine]

No default to the incumbent or challenger...No quorum, no valid election.

If neither can motivate enough voters to cast a ballot for them, they deserve to lose.

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

False dichotomy. False presumption.

Try again.

So there is a correct answer you are looking for? Well spit it out.

 

[whitehall]

Are you serious? If you manage to supress the voter turnout you get to (or are forced to) keep the previous administration. Not good.

 

[percysunshine]

Are you serious? If you manage to supress the voter turnout you get to (or are forced to) keep the previous administration. Not good.

I am trying to think of other ways that idea could pan out.

Maybe a never ending continual election. Like a weekly voting lottery system where the winner forks over half his campaign funds to those who voted for him.

Wait...we may already have that...

 

[Big Fitz]

So anarchy? No politicians at all...or at least, the office in question is dissolved. It is enticing, but then we might turn into a Sicilian mob structure.

None of the above. If a true majority will not show up to vote for the POS on the ballot, then just leave the office empty and have an election every other month until a candidate surfaces who can get out the vote.

Don't forget to invalidate all candidates who didn't make out of the primaries.

 

[whitehall]

Are you serious? If you manage to supress the voter turnout you get to (or are forced to) keep the previous administration. Not good.

I am trying to think of other ways that idea could pan out.

Maybe a never ending continual election. Like a weekly voting lottery system where the winner forks over half his campaign funds to those who voted for him.

Wait...we may already have that...

The answer of course is voter interest in the political process but the left already voiced their opinion of the Tea Party activism so I guess voter rights for undocumented aliens is the future for the liberal establishment

 

[JFK_USA]

Not bad. I would say have a range.

45-55% of eligible voters for tax increasing referendum

45% for local and state primaries regardless of political affliation.

But that means getting more people out to vote helps Democrats because Republicans always come out and vote.

 

[washamericom]

finally a blanket gerrymanderning system that works... o b for president

 

[Big Fitz]

finally a blanket gerrymanderning system that works... o b for president

Gerrymandering prevention? Simple.

Require all districts must be drawn with the smallest area and shortest border possible to satisfy voting requirements and geography. The most efficient shape is a circle, therefore you'll get lot of districts looking much more like that, barring geography.

Bawney Fwank would be fucked, so would Waxman and most other urban entrenched party members... and about goddamn time.