On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote: > Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of > proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people > see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks; > likewise, when other people come up with proposals, they're supposed to > find out what problems you think their's causes, and work to fix that. > > Once the problem is understood fully, and we've found a solution that > either doesn't have drawbacks, or a number of solutions where we can > properly understand the tradeoffs amongst them and can't find any way > to avoid having to make them, we're in a position to make an informed > choice. And people aren't *supposed* to be doing these things in legislatures? (Those used to be known as "deliberative bodies", back in the good old naïve days.) I don't see how simple majoritiarianism serves an enlightened-choice model of voting more *poorly* than it serves a bargaining-and-horse-trading model of voting. -- G. Branden Robinson | It's not a matter of alienating Debian GNU/Linux | authors. They have every right to branden@debian.org | license their software however we http://people.debian.org/~branden/ | like. -- Craig Sanders
Attachment:
pgpq7sHWfCPFx.pgp
Description: PGP signature