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

Re: supermajority options

On Sat, Nov 23, 2002 at 02:08:25PM +1000, Anthony Towns wrote:
> Improving our understanding of the matter, and the implications of
> proposed solutions. The idea is to find out what drawbacks other people
> see in your proposal and change your proposal to avoid those drawbacks;
> likewise, when other people come up with proposals, they're supposed to
> find out what problems you think their's causes, and work to fix that.
> Once the problem is understood fully, and we've found a solution that
> either doesn't have drawbacks, or a number of solutions where we can
> properly understand the tradeoffs amongst them and can't find any way
> to avoid having to make them, we're in a position to make an informed
> choice.

And people aren't *supposed* to be doing these things in legislatures?
(Those used to be known as "deliberative bodies", back in the good old
naïve days.)

I don't see how simple majoritiarianism serves an enlightened-choice
model of voting more *poorly* than it serves a
bargaining-and-horse-trading model of voting.

G. Branden Robinson                |     It's not a matter of alienating
Debian GNU/Linux                   |     authors.  They have every right to
branden@debian.org                 |     license their software however we
http://people.debian.org/~branden/ |     like.  -- Craig Sanders

Attachment: pgpq7sHWfCPFx.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: