[EM] why 0-99 in range voting

[Abd ul-Rahman Lomax]

At 06:10 PM 11/22/2006, Juho wrote:
>Clear yes or no questions (I prefer "yes or no" to "A or B") are
>often the best way to present the decision points. But sometimes
>multiple-answer elections require something better, like when there
>is a loop of three. Then the one who decides the order of voting
>(often the chairman) will decide who wins.

Something which is too often overlooked is that the chair can do 
*nothing* without the consent of a majority. That is, a majority can 
always overrule the chair. Indeed, a majority can recall the chair 
and elect a new chair *at any time.*

(Where meetings have rules preventing this, they have deviated from 
basic democratic process.)

But it is often the case that many people in a large meeting don't 
really understand the Rules. It's a solvable problem. All it takes is 
a few people who care about democratic process to explain the rules, 
to raise points of order, etc. And where there are multiple factions, 
of course, each faction can have its own parliamentarian, or at least 
someone who understands the basic rules.

Roberts Rules are mostly common-law, common-sense, if you think about 
the problems of democratic process. Some aspects of the rules are 
somewhat arbitrary, such as the 2/3 vote to close debate and proceed 
to vote on a question -- why 2/3? why not 63%, 60% (U.S. Senate -- it 
used to be two-thirds), or, for that matter, 50%? -- but most aspects 
of the rules, such as the priority of motions, are basically common sense.

An Objection to Consideration of the Question, for example, is not 
debatable because to debate it would defeat the very purpose of the 
motion. Likewise an Appeal from a decision of the chair isn't 
debatable, because we could enter an endless regression of appeals 
and debates about appeals, etc.