Re: P1788/M0024.03:RoundedOperations: PLEASE VOTE
Michel,
This voting anomaly applies also to real, in-person votes.
In Wisconsin last February, the Repubican-controled legislature was poised to pass a State budget. The Democrats in the State Senate opposed the proposal to revoke the right (privilege?) for organize public employees (especially public school teachers), so ALL of the Democratic State Senators left the state for two weeks to deny a quorum (if they remained in the state, the State Police would bring them back to the capital, by force, if necessary). The Republicans held a majority, but not enough for a quorum.
I don't know whether the absent Democrats charged the State for their expenses. I suspect not, or the press would be all over it.
The Republicans found a way around it, passed the budget, and teachers are retiring IN DROVES to retain the union-negotiated benefits before they are rescinded.
Now, we are having recall elections targeting 3 of the Democrats who left the state and 3 of the Republicans who voted FOR the budget.
And Wisconsin USED to pride itself on its good government :-(
If P1788 wished to amend its voting rules, all that is required is a motion to amend them. As I understand it, the change would need to be accepted by IEEE.
Another possible voting rule is to specify 50% of Voting Members is required to pass. Or a majority of those voting AND at least 40% of Voting Members.
George Corliss
On Jul 19, 2011, at 8:13 AM, Michel Hack wrote:
>> Current tally: 27 Yes; 7 No; required for quorum: 38
>
> In other words, we just need four more NO votes for the motion to pass. :(
>
> Come on guys and gals, aren't some of us mathematicians? Can we not come
> up with a sensible quorum rule that avoids this issue? This came up before,
> but eventually the discussion fizzled without resolution.
>
> Perhaps the problem is inherent in open voting. We don't want to pass a
> motion without a reasonable quorum, but it also seems silly that deliberate
> refusal to vote can be used to force an outcome. The exclusion from further
> voting after two non-votes was supposed to stabilize the procedure (by making
> the next quorum smaller) -- but I haven't heard this rule mentioned recently,
> perhaps because it doesn't apply to position papers.
Correct.
>
> Here is one possible rule: If the quorum has not been reached by the end
> of the voting period, but either YES or NO votes exceed quorum/2, then the
> quorum is deemed to have been reached. This avoids a motion being passed
> by too small a number of votes, but also avoids the problem at hand.
>
> Michel.
> ---Sent: 2011-07-19 13:34:51 UTC
Dr. George F. Corliss
Electrical and Computer Engineering
Marquette University
P.O. Box 1881
1515 W. Wisconsin Ave
Milwaukee WI 53201-1881 USA
414-288-6599; GasDay: 288-4400; Fax 288-5579
George.Corliss@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
www.eng.mu.edu/corlissg