[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 Sat, Dec 09, 2000 at 05:27:56AM -0500, Raul Miller wrote:
> > It is the same ballot, repeated six times. Is that really difficult to
> > understand?
> They're not the same ballot because they don't have the same options
> on them.

Actually, they do have the same options on them: Yes, No, and Further
Discussion.

The final ballot is precisely:

	``Shall this resolution be passed: Y/N/F''

Since at the time it's voted on there are six different forms the
resolution can take, and voters are required to be able to vote on this
final ballot differently depending on which final form is chosen, the
ballot has to be repeated six times.

> I suppose that means this conversation is near close.

Well, I was hoping that we'd be able to achieve some consensus here,
but the only objective technical standard for argument you seem willing
to accept seems to be minimal wording changes to the constitution,
so I guess there really is no point.

Cheers,
aj

-- 
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: pgpMUfldX3ukg.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: