Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]

To: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
Subject: Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
From: Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>
Date: Mon, 22 Dec 2008 09:23:21 -0800
Message-id: <20081222172321.GC19949@dario.dodds.net>
Mail-followup-to: debian-vote@lists.debian.org
In-reply-to: <21759496.14681229955174673.JavaMail.root@zimbra.xen.brainfood.com>
References: <32013836.14661229954792548.JavaMail.root@zimbra.xen.brainfood.com> <21759496.14681229955174673.JavaMail.root@zimbra.xen.brainfood.com>

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 08:12:54AM -0600, Ean Schuessler wrote:

> Condorcet is orthogonal to the issue.

It isn't.  The US two-party system and resulting political maneuvering are
an exploit of FPTP.

-- 
Steve Langasek                   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer                   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developer                                    http://www.debian.org/
slangasek@ubuntu.com                                     vorlon@debian.org

Reply to:

References:
- Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
  - From: Ean Schuessler <ean@brainfood.com>

Prev by Date: Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
Next by Date: Re: Results for Project membership procedures
Previous by thread: Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
Next by thread: Re: Supermajority requirements and historical context [Was, Re: First call for votes for the Lenny release GR]
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread