Talk:Quorum

Referenda

I think "quorum" applies to referendums as well as "deliberative bodies"; see Talk:Referendum#Quorum. Jostens 08:03, 14 Jun 2008

Globalise

Though the concept of Quorom is not different in other parts of the world, all the exemplar material relates to geographically specific usage. Indeed, before my edit the phrase quorom-busting was seen to refer to a global perspective - it is not generally used in the United Kingdom. I would like to see examples of how quorum is worked out in different parliamentry assmeblies and other deliberative bodies. Davidkinnen 16:42, 23 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I merged in sub-quorum but we need verification etc. RJFJR 16:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different meaning?

We work on aerobes and anaerobes, on methanogens and metallogens, on genes and genomes, on quorum sensing, global signaling pathways, symbionts, pathogens and biofilm communities. Welcome to the Wonderful World of Microbes! --www.micro.cornell.edu//

i was wondering if anybody knew of this meaning, or if it is the same one. Meommy89 21:29, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The definition is wrong. Quorum does not just apply to legislative assemblies as is implied.

quorum /ˈkwɔːrəm/ noun 1. a minimum number of members in an assembly, society, board of directors, etc, required to be present before any valid business can be transacted: the quorum is forty, we don't have a quorum Word Origin 1425-75; < Latin quōrum of whom; from a use of the word in commissions written in Latin specifying a quorum

I also have a Ph.D, try not to get ahead of yourself when trying to define something you are not in or have personal knowledge about. This website is to help people understand the world as it was, is and will be. Do not try and prove you know something for which you do not. The definition you are trying to imply is being adapted from its original form into a new complex form. However, that does not make the current definition wrong or its use wrong. As in everything evolutions plays a part, try to remember that when you post a comment.Cristykay (talk) 04:17, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Cluster disk

HI,

please add notes about Quorum as a Cluster shared disk in IT.

Thanks

193.226.212.86 07:55, 13 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Quorum-busting

voters who are in favor of the status quo are able to use an obstructive strategy called, in the United States, quorum-busting. If a significant number of voters choose not to be present for the vote, the vote will fail due to lack of quorum, and the status quo will remain.

If quorum is a majority, and the vote (presumably) requires a majority, then how is this more effective than voting "Nay"? Unless quorum requires a stricter majority than the vote does, of course. 212.121.153.12 (talk) 12:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are organizations that only require a majority vote of the members present to make some change. In order to have a vote, there must be a minimum number of members present, a quorum. If those for the status quo know that they are going to lose, but without them there won't be enough for the change to constitute a quorum, then they don't show up to make the quorum and the change can't take place. — Val42 (talk) 04:32, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone please add INDIANA to the quorum-busting main article section. Excerpt: Seats on one side of the Indiana House were nearly empty today as House Democrats departed the the state rather than vote on anti-union legislation. A source tells the Indianapolis Star that Democrats are headed to Illinois, though it was possible some also might go to Kentucky. They need to go to a state with a Democratic governor to avoid being taken into police custody and returned to Indiana. http://www.indystar.com/article/20110222/NEWS/110222004/House-Democrats-flee-Indiana-stop-votes LeahBethM (talk) 19:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The explanation of a Qurom is wrong. It takes a 2/3 sitting House or Senate for any legislature to meet and discuss the agenda for the day. That is why, when the opposition can not beat a piece of legislation by a plain majority vote, the opposition's only recourse is the "Quorum Break." The break that took place in the Texas Legislature in 2003 is also incorrect in its discription of the Democratic House Members actions. They met at midnight the night prior to the vote on the state's redistricting plan and took a vote on what they would do. Leticia Van DePutte, Texas State Legislative Representative Democrat from San Antonio at the time, took the vote. Then they immedetialy left, but by a rented bus (not a plane) and drove to the Oklahoma border, where they crossed. Also, where they stayed. Warrants were issued. However, not all members that broke were in Oklahoma. At least 7 were still in the State of Texas. A warrant issued by any State related to the issue of a Quorum break is not valid in another state, but is only valid within the issuing state lines. At least 5 of the members were granted a "amnesty" by the Speaker of the House, Tom Craddick of Midland. He knew at all times were these members were, however, because of their loyalty to him at the time he left them alone. However, one member, State Represesentative Craig Eigland, from Houston, whoes wife had just given birth to twins that were in ICU was not allowed such curtesy. The Texas Rangers, who were charged with finding all members within the state not loyal to Speaker Craddick, were constantly in the ICU ward and in the ward where his wife was also recuperating for the danger her and their childerns lives had indured during the delivery. Since the stess of the situation was putting a strain on Rep. Eiland's family the hospital finally forced the Texas Rangers to leave the hospital or they would be forced to get a federal injuction on their action for it was causing undo stress and pain to an already dangerous situation. Everything that I know is first hand knowledge from the members themselves, although I do know that a puplication, called the Qourom Report has quite a few details. Cristykay (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was also a break about 15 years earlier in the Texas Senate and they were called the Killer Bee's. I will need to research it to get all the details.Cristykay (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Somene also needs to put in about Abraham Lincoln breaking a Qurom by climbing out a window after the doors were locked when he was a State Rerpresentative in Illinois, where he got elected on a pro-slaver platform. Cristykay (talk) 03:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearing quorum

It seems to me that the article on the disappearing quorum is too short and does not merit a stand-alone article. It is not like the quorum article is too long... KarlFrei (talk) 12:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong

Quorum-busting and attempts to thwart it are also a common feature during the annual motion debate related to 1989 Tiananmen massacre moved by a self-professed[citation needed] pro-democracy Member. The quorum is called to be counted from time to time by the Member's comrades, in order to force the pro-Beijing camp to keep some members in the chamber.

Ignoring the odd use of comrades, I'm confused by this. Isn't the lack of quorum what the pro-Beijing members want so the debate is shut down? So at most they would need to keep one member in as per the earlier examples, to call for a quorum count since it's possible no one else may do so. Nil Einne (talk) 15:57, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Pluralization

The current article explains that "quora" is not a valid pluralization of "quorum" but it does not mention what the correct pluralization is. If the article is going to discuss how not to pluralize then it should at least mention how to do so correctly. Could someone with this knowledge add a sentence to the introduction? Nippashish (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add my own "amen" to that! Why bother telling us the "wrong plural," when you can't be bothered to tell us the "right plural?" That just comes across as pedantic, show-offy, and even (IMHO) borderline rude. The Grand Rascal (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:07, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's amusing that this page uses the word "quora" later on in the article. Probably should be switched to the correct pluralization. 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Opensourcejunkie (talk • contribs)

If we accept that "quora" is not the correct plural form of "quorum", although its use seems to be widespread, quorum would follow the normal rules for forming plurals in English. The plural of quorum would therefore be "quorums". Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:15, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US-centric

Yet again, a Wiki article written as though the world consists of the USA, with a few other countries mentioned at the end. The first half of the article which presnets as a general overview is in fact all about Robert's Rules, a source hardly known or used outside the USA and all examples are from the USA. Fine, but all this material then belongs under the country heading, USA. Either Wiki is an genuinely international resource or it is the private preserve of Americans.Unraed (talk) 17:43, 13 June 2012 (UTC)unraed[reply]

If you can provide reliable, secondary sources for the usage of "Quorum" in Tahiti, please be my guest and add them. It's a systemic bias, not malice that leads to the Amerocentric tone. A problem, but not one to be upset at editors over. Achowat (talk) 17:47, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have to admit that as a visitor from the UK, I had no idea why "Roberts Rules" was mentioned in almost every paragraph like it was the de facto standard. The article on RR clearly states that it's entirely US-Centric. I believe this one, which seems to derive almost entirely from it, should too. just my 2p 86.173.12.117 (talk) 23:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what's the de facto standard for Rules for social clubs in your part of the world? Tell me and I'll buy the source and add the text. Achowat (talk) 12:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Although Robert's Rules undoubtedly constitute a valuable resource for anybody trying to run a meeting, it is not a publication widely available in booksstores outside North America, nor is the authority of Robert's Rules generally recognized. The UK parliament has its own influential rules of procedure and the procedural rules of government bodies both national and local are established by both statute and custom. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 23:25, 26 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

US 501(C)(3) organizations

The final paragraph of the United States section of this article states, "The Internal Revenue Service requires that non-profit organizations that receive tax exemptions under Section 501(c)(3) have a quorum present at their required yearly meeting. If it is not, then not only can they not vote, but they must also have another meeting so that it then takes longer for them to make decisions."

This statement ends with opinionated whining, so the second sentence should definitely be removed.

I did a bit of research, and determined that regular meetings of any kind are not required for 501(C)(3) organizations, not being mentioned at all in http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p4221pc.pdf and other documents on the IRS website. Various 3rd-party legal guides indicate that 501(C)(3) Corporations may be required to hold an annual meeting, but this is only mentioned in connection with non-profit corporations, not all organizations, and the wording appears to indicate that this is either related to varying state laws, or varying types of non-profit corporations, or both.

There is absolutely no mention at all of requirements of a quorum (which is a subjective definition in any organization), or even majorities or voting. A non-profit organization may have their own bylaws or policies requiring this, but that's up to each organization.

I am therefore deleting this paragraph, as it appears to be entirely false. 97.121.43.81 (talk) 19:32, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 external links on Quorum. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is this made up?

This part right here:

In the United States Senate, the procedure was used in the early morning hours of 25 February 1988. Senator Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia, then the Senate Majority Leader, moved a call of the house after the minority Republicans walked out in an attempt to deny the Senate a quorum after Senate aides began bringing cots ...

I cannot find a single source backing up that this whole thing ever occurred. I'm going to delete it unless more substantial sources are provided. -- LightSpectra (talk) 18:45, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@user:LightSpectra So you waited a day after this comment, and removed a section that you thought was untrue, but had verifiable references? A quick Google search shows multiple reputable sources verifying this. I've returned the information you deleted. Trumblej1986 (talk) 21:54, 8 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

U.S.-specific material and robert's rules

I have moved the material pertaining to various interesting quorum games in U.S. legislatures to the U.S. section. Also, the material inappropriately defined quorum in terms of Robert's Rules, whereas those rules only propose one way to determine it. By editing the heading this is made more clear. -- cmh^TC 00:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]