quorum of more than 2/3

[Shmuel Gerber]

On 11/29/2023 at 9:42 PM, Drake Savory said:

It could be for very large values of 2.

😁

[Atul Kapur]

On 11/30/2023 at 8:08 AM, Shmuel Gerber said:

"For example (assuming that there are no voters having fractions of a vote…) … If 19 votes are cast, 10 is a majority (more than 9½), as are 11 through 19, but 0 through 9 are not."

"... If 19 votes are cast, 10 or more is a majority (more than 9½)."?

[Josh Martin]

On 11/29/2023 at 10:33 PM, Baofeng Ma said:

Is it safe to summarize the two points of view like the following?

1. (more than 2/3) attendees = 9

2. more than (2/3 attendees) = 10

Yes, I think this is an accurate summary. Although I think there is no doubt that only one of these points of view (the first one) is mathematically correct. 9 is more than 2/3 of 13.

I suppose a more charitable interpretation of the second point of view would be that, in their opinion, the rule in the bylaws should be interpreted as the quorum being more than (2/3 of the voting members, rounded up to the next whole number). This would make the opinion at least mathematically correct, although still a rather strange interpretation of the wording in the bylaws.

As Mr. Honemann notes, however, this will ultimately be a question for the society to answer, since this is a question concerning the meaning of your society's bylaws.

In the long run, it may be advisable to amend the bylaws to clarify the quorum requirement. And perhaps lower it.

Edited November 30, 2023 at 08:16 PM by Josh Martin

[Wright Stuff]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:30 PM, Atul Kapur said:

As has been stated by others, the underlined portion is incorrect. This applies to voting  (which is where 44:1 & 44:2 are relevant) but has no relevance in determining quorum or for determining the threshold to determine the outcome of a vote (for example, if 19 total votes are cast a majority is any vote > 9.5 and this does not get rounded up to the next whole number).

Can you explain further? I’m trying to understand “has no relevance in determining quorum…”. Maybe I’m confused over ”this applies to voting.” What is “this”?

Edited December 13, 2023 at 01:35 AM by Wright Stuff

[Atul Kapur]

"This" is an incorrect interpretation of the rules by some people in the OP's organization.

My original comments were  not particularly edifying.

The point that I think I was trying to make was that, even if you don't have fractional voting and are dealing with individuals, that you don't round up any threshold. So if the threshold is more than 8⅔ (two-thirds of 13) then you do not round at all. Any number more than 8⅔, such as 9, meets the threshold.

[Note that this threshold, more than 2/3, is unusual. The standard for supermajorities is usually at least the designated fraction]

[Wright Stuff]

On 12/12/2023 at 9:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

My original comments were  not particularly edifying.

Your contributions are always very helpful.

On 12/12/2023 at 9:42 PM, Atul Kapur said:

The point that I think I was trying to make was that, even if you don't have fractional voting and are dealing with individuals, that you don't round up any threshold. So if the threshold is more than 8⅔ (two-thirds of 13) then you do not round at all. Any number more than 8⅔, such as 9, meets the threshold.

I think not rounding up the threshold is what I was not understanding. 

Thank you.