OK, kind of a weird one here, but very important... I run four separate leagues based on NCAA conferences, but all fall under the umbrella of "NCAA Fantasy Baseball" and will be voting on the same League Constitution as one voting body. In some instances, the same manager has a team in two conferences. In my case, I have a team in all four conferences. In voting on the Constitution should I have four votes? Should the managers with two teams have two votes? Or should everyone have one vote, regardless of how many teams they have? In other words, should it be one-vote-per-team or one-vote-per-manager?
Ok, thanks, that's what I figured... On the other side of the coin, if a team has two co-managers, they should still get only one vote between them, right? I know it's probably common sense...just making sure.
Either it is one vote per team, or one vote per man. If one vote per man is going to be your philosophy, then if you have a team with co-owners, they should each get a vote.
Because of this conflict, I would say one vote per team, which would mean you get 4 votes. Especially if this is a league with a fee to play.
Some better solutions are out there though.....
If you have 4 leagues that operate under the same constitution, but you can't fill all 4 leagues with owners, then you need to go to 2 or 3 leagues. Why have dual-ownership if you can avoid it?
My favorite way to handle this, would be for you to write a constitution, and that be the end of it. If you have 20 guys haggling over rules and having votes on how things run, you will spend more time on rules than playing the actual game and you will probably see people get upset and quit even before the season starts. Put a clause in the constitution that if over 50% of the participants notify you via email that if they wish for there to be redress of a specific rule, that a discussion among the whole league may be held. This gives you a safety net, but discourages people from sniping about small tweaks to rules every 5 minutes.
I don't agree at all that it has to be one vote per man or one vote per team... in the case of co-owners, they effectively constitute one "man". In effect, it should be one vote per owner - where an owner can be more than one man.
"The government cannot give to anyone anything that it does not first take from someone else"
I'm inclined to agree with you, Bloody. Cuz if co-managers each got a vote everyone would say "Screw this, I'm getting a co-manager" just so they could have 2 votes on everything. I would either do one vote per team or one vote per manager, with co-managers counting as a single manager.