Re: Another proposal.
Raul Miller wrote:
> That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying
> is bad. I don't think you understood my objection.
> Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met
> and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes
> against the option.
i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes
the vote to be binding.
you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote.
if the proponent fails to get anyone interested in her ballot other than
her self and her second, then votes against would have a sincere impact
and prevent Further Discussion.
i can see two major outcomes when X<Q:
1) the ballot sponsor withdrawls the ballot entirely (in which case
Further Discussion, the defacto default option, is not invoked)
2) the ballot is put to a vote again, ballot unchanged. Further
discussion is only invoked in an effort to get people to the polls.
the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely.
the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum
and Supermajority requirements.
i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should
have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the
difference. i have really tried to follow the whole discussion, and the
counting of Supermajority is daunting.