And if the 'majority' turns out to be 8 or 9 people because only 12 people vote, is that really how major changes to ALFA should be enacted?SwordSaintMusashi wrote:I've been aware of the thread as of yesterday, and I've been looking back and forth at the suggestions.
While it is true LA has the power to Veto something the other admin do, I still am for Castano's proposal of requiring a majority vote for any major change to a major facet of ALFA. A veto should not be tossed callously, and if the majority vote one way, then the potential LA should want to see why the majority doesn't agree with him before he/she just cabashes it.
This is what is so frustrating about this entire conversation. Everyone seems to admit that we struggle to keep our voting lists up to date, so instead of actually fixing that problem, we should change how voting works for major changes?
How are we even managing to run elections 10 out of every 12 months if the list of eligible voters is and seemingly always has been a problem? Shouldn't that be getting fixed before we consider changes to something that is, in all fairness, rarely used? We have not exactly made many changes to the charter since it was first put in place.