Mr McMahon,
Similar to the last topic of discussion about regular and special meetings, this isn't a matter of tradition or an absurdity, this is a clearly stated rule in our policy manual, which serves very specific purpose in the conduct of our business.
These rules protect the rights of members and ensure fair conduct of business.
Meetings are special meetings to prevent unnoticed business from being sprung by surprise.
These differing vote thresholds exist very specifically to incentivize notice and again incentivize fair conduct of business.
As this ballot has demonstrated, and absent these rules, a motion introduced in a meeting without notice, for arguments sake a meeting that barely achieves quorum, could pass a 2/3 vote threshold after being heard by only approximately half of the board hearing
it at all, and as low as only 1 member voting in favor if the others present abstain.
This rule protects absentees by its nature that the above scenario would only be allowed if the business was noticed, and people still chose not to attend and those who did to abstain.
On the contrary, under our current rules, if a motion is not noticed, then it must be assured that a majority of the entire body is in support. This prevents unjust rules from being snuck in behind the backs of most of those involved. 2/3 can still end up
resulting in need for less votes than a majority of the whole board being required (hence the incentive for notice).
Please take the time to better familiarize yourself with this body's rules and the reasons why they are important, as you have twice now spoken flagrantly against such rules while misunderstanding their purpose.