Re: supermajority options
> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated
> > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain
> > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all
> > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote:
> > The remaining question: Do we want "neutrality"?
> >
> > "Neutrality" isn't always a desirable condition.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing
> against supermajorities.
What kind of neutrality do we want?
> > Given the definition of the priviledged minority (those in opposition to
> > the current proposed change) is so fluid and changeable, I find this
> > conclusion to be overly strong based on the argument and evidence put
> > forth.
>
> As I interpret the paper, the point is that any truly unpopular
> proposition that is railroaded through will energize the opposition, and
> result in its prompt repeal.
This becomes meaningless if the vote replaces the system which
allows prompt repeal with some other system.
> Consider that if we do away with supermajority requirements under the
> Constitution and all hell breaks loose, it will only take a simple
> majority to restore them. If all hell breaks loose, do you think 50% +
> 1 of the voters will agree on that fact?
Are you talking 50% of 2000 debian developers + 1? Or are you talking
50% of the active voters + 1? [That's a halfway trick question: you're
advocating making the system such that at some point in the future --
presumably after people are frustrated with some major failure -- it's
easy to change this part of the system. But it would be interesting to
know what you see as the starting point.]
> > Likewise majority-rules can lead to situations where there is no
> > stability, and adapted positions flip-flop back and forth between
> > extremes.
>
> Why would they flip-flop between in extremes under our system, where we
> can have multiple options on the ballot, and rank-ordering by the voter?
You're advocating that that be subject to change. So it's at worth
discussing the fundamentals of this kind of change.
--
Raul
Reply to: