[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT] Disambiguation of 4.1.5)

On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 07:04:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Which sheds a great deal of light on the motivations behind his "amendment"
> to John Goerzen's proposal.

Which was to be handled by having two votes, which would've required,
initially, a simple majority in favour of John's proposal, then a 3:1 vote
(assuming a supermajority was required for it to pass) in favour for it
to succeed.

Are you making these random snide comments about scare-quoted "amendments"
because you actually believe them, or just to get a reaction, btw?


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

     ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there''
                       -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001

Attachment: pgptItvKEnra7.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: