Jn:
I don't especially want to avoid that scenario. If the person feels that there is broad support for the proposal and people have just been too lazy to vote, they should be able to tweak the system as far as it will tweak to bring about their own aim - in this case, getting an extra bit of time to mobilize voters.
I just find the idea that this sort of behavior appalling. The idea that someone would deliberately withhold a vote to change the parameters of the vote is obscene to me.
Jn:
Those who thought it should not be changed and should not even be voted on should logically withhold their vote in the hopes that a quorum cannot be reached.
I sure wouldn't use this logic. Either I decide the vote is wholly illegal and refuse to vote in it at any point no matter what because it's an illegitimate vote, or I decide that even though I don't approve of the vote happening I'll still participate and go ahead and vote
no right away. This middle way you describe, where the quorum level is used as a weapon is appalling to me.
Your scenario brings up a good point,
Jn. (Though I have a feeling you won't think it's a good point.
)
Given a quorum of 30, why exactly should a vote of 21-9 pass while a vote of 21-5 fail? I don't think it's logical that four extra
no votes would somehow make the proposition succeed. It's bizarre!
IS:
Manipulation, including abstention (think about that one ) and last minute switches are key strategies.
Crap, you've smoked out my master plan with question 2.
After a series of abstentions and vote reversals, I'm going to brilliantly manipulate the system into miraculously mandating that the ten day period contain 3 weekends!
I think the end effect of all this discussion is that I now realize I have to vote against the extension to reach quorum no matter what. I'd rather just say the voting period is 7 days longer from the outset, if that's what people think is needed.