Re: PROPOSED: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Alternate disambiguation of 4.1.5
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
> Hi,
>
> Indeed, I had proposed this in -project on the 19th of
> July. This addresses the same ambiguity that Brandon does in his
> proposal, but in a distincly different fashion. I would suggest that
> this should be offered as an alternative to Brandon's proposal, if it
> comes to a vote (if the rules lawyers deem that permissible). If not,
> this may stand on its own (leaving open the possibility that both,
> almost opposite, amendments may be accepted).
Sigh... I really need to get off my duff and start working on a
package one of these days. If I -were- a Developer, I'd second this
one.
As it is, the inner Parliamentarian in me (doesn't everyone have an
inner Parliamentarian) cringes at the idea of having two similar but
incompatable proposals made nearly simultaneously that both require 3:1
supermajorities to pass.
If they are placed on the same ballot, there's a very good chance that
one or the other will get a majority of the votes, either directly or
through the Condorcet procedure, but fail to get a 3:1 supermajority.
If they are placed on separate ballots, which one gets voted on first?
Do we vote on the second if the first is accepted? What if they -both-
win?
--
Buddha Buck bmbuck@14850.com
"Just as the strength of the Internet is chaos, so the strength of our
liberty depends upon the chaos and cacophony of the unfettered speech
the First Amendment protects." -- A.L.A. v. U.S. Dept. of Justice
Reply to: