[MR] Unfortunate Tidings regarding the Queen's Arms change

[colin-g at cox.net]

> > 2.  They could decide to redo the polling, hopefully
> > gathering a larger level of response. I concur with
> > the College that 93 out of over 2000 is nowhere near
> > enough to accurately judge the intent of the
> > populace.  Then armed with the higher turnout
> > polling, they could resubmit the change, and it
> > would have a good chance of passing.
> 
> How many people would have to respond to "accurately
> judge the intent of the populace"?

This is an excellent question. Really, I appreciate the right of the College to come to this decision but wonder why they didn't state what WOULD be acceptable numbers. Are we likely to see a clarification from Laurel?

Colin G