A quorum is the minimum number of votes required to make a poll valid. Quorums help to prevent a few voters from passing laws simply because the bulk of the voters did not get to the polls. We have approximately 25 active citizens and 8 Cabinet Members. The quorum would be 50%, which is 4 Cabinet Members for Council Votes and 13 Citizens for Citizen Polls.

This topic was discussed here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&postid=300839#post300839).

This poll will run for 48 hours, ending 18:25 GMT on Thursday, May 30.

yes, but the numbers should be absolute, not relative. as we never will know how many active citizens we have.
so we should stick with the 4/13 rule

maybe also a "differental distance" quorum would be needed for polls with more than 2 alternatives. lets say a poll has 5 alternatives, all 5 could be very close togeter. if the first is not 10% apart from the second, a separation poll of the first 2 should be posted? something like that.

Originally posted by disorganizer
maybe also a "differental distance" quorum would be needed for polls with more than 2 alternatives. lets say a poll has 5 alternatives, all 5 could be very close togeter. if the first is not 10% apart from the second, a separation poll of the first 2 should be posted? something like that.
Ties are fairly detailed in the Constitution. It's not one that I particularly favor since our voting pool is so small.

Dis - could you start a discussion on this and link it back to here? I'm too swamped with work right now to do anything.

I'm voting no.

First of all we really have no way of gauging how many active citizens we have at a given time.

Second, there are times we need a quick decision. Having to wait on a quorum may cause a dealy in these situations.

I voted no. Agreeing with Donsig's first reason, but disagreeing with his second. I don't like quick polls. They should be like this poll with an ending time and date. As far as Cabinet Votes go, I have to vote for these people come election time. I better see how they vote in each and every Cabinet vote. Most of their job is making a decision to help steer our nation. Show us all the votes.

Good point, Cyc - A quorum helps to prevent quick polls. It invalidates a poll if enough people don't vote. I don't think the quorum would unduly slow down Cabinet votes. With this rule 4 Cabinet Members must respond before a Cabinet Vote is valid. 3 assents (and a dissenter) can still carry a Cabinet Vote. This would just ensure that at least half the Cabinet responded before the all powerful Cabinet Vote could be validated.

If we find that we regularly get less than 13 citizens responding to polls we can reevaluate the quorum requirement. This is relatively easy as we'll have the under-responded polls for the numbers and so could be adjusted very quickly.

Do quorums apply to spot votes during turn chat? How about citizen polls during turn chat?

Quorums are for posted polls on the Forum. I don't think it would be possible to institute a quorum requirement for the turn chats because attendance is so unstable and low.

I vote for Council votes only, because first, we know how many council members there are, and second, they are "obligated" to vote. Citizens can choose not to vote, that is still a measure of their opinion. Just like in the real world, election turnout can vary widely, that still doesn't invalidate the election. What if only 11 people voted in a governor's election? Does that mean we don't have a governor? The people have the right to vote, or not to vote, as they wish. The cabinet has a duty to vote, so we can and should require a quorum, but not for the people.

I have been convinced by Justus and would like to change my vote from 'Yes - For Council Votes and Citizen Polls' to ''Yes - For Council Votes'.

an addition: we could enforce to add an option "abstain" to ALL votes. this would ensure all citizens take part in the poll, but can choose not to vote by choosing "abstain". they will still be counted for the given votes with this. so if we have a 2 yes, 1 no and 20 abstain poll for example, it would be a valid yes-vote.

I can not believe we are having this conversation Shaitan. Aren't Leaders votes supposed to reflect the public wishes? Shouldn't we be waitng to see what the leaders say?

Quote from Shaitan:
Good point, Cyc - A quorum helps to prevent quick polls. It invalidates a poll if enough people don't vote. I don't think the quorum would unduly slow down Cabinet votes. With this rule 4 Cabinet Members must respond before a Cabinet Vote is valid. 3 assents (and a dissenter) can still carry a Cabinet Vote. This would just ensure that at least half the Cabinet responded before the all powerful Cabinet Vote could be validated.

In your example, Shaitan, if one Leader was watching a poll close enough they could end the poll before the other 4 Leaders got a chance to vote, calling it a valid poll. But if the other 4 Leaders came in with a no vote, the motion would not carry. It doesn't make sense to silence the people we elect.

"In your example, Shaitan, if one Leader was watching a poll close enough they could end the poll before the other 4 Leaders got a chance to vote, calling it a valid poll. But if the other 4 Leaders came in with a no vote, the motion would not carry. It doesn't make sense to silence the people we elect."

They do not get to choose when the poll closes.

Thanks, pukbass2000. A poll is not closed when it reaches the quorum amount. It is validated. The poll proceeds to its normal closing. What the quorum does is invalidate a poll that went to its normal conclusion but did not get enough attendance to represent a significant portion of the populace.

an example:
we had polls with only 10 votes, while normally 20 citizens vote. these polls took decisions, and they only had 10 votes because they only were up for 1 day! so the complains were big about the decisions taken there. the proposal would prevent this, because less than 15 citizens voted. even if the same poll would have been up for 3 weeks, he would not have been valid.