Re: Another proposal.
On Tue, Nov 19, 2002 at 12:08:28PM -0800, John H. Robinson, IV wrote:
> you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote.
I'm not assuming that only proponents of an option on a ballot will
bother to vote. I'm not sure what "proponents of a ballot" means,
so I can't say whether or not I'm assuming that.
> 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)
The sponsor withdrawing the ballot would presumably be a consequence
It's true, however, that "further discussion" does not mandate any
particular volume of discussion.
> 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 current constitution doesn't allow this outcome. Specifically:
it requires some discussion before putting the ballot to vote again.
I think this is a good characteristic of the constitution.
I'm not sure why you're advocating otherwise. Or maybe I just
don't know what you're advocating.
> 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.
This has nothing to do with what you've said leading up to this sentence,
and your feelings about supermajority, even if they were correct, don't
justify removing quorum.
> 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.
Unfortunately, if you're asking for clarification, I'm not sure what
you're asking for clarification of. [Are you asking why we'd bother
wanting to have supermajority at all? Or are you asking something
specific about how it relates to one of our drafts?]