# Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)

```On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <asd@suespammers.org> said:
>
> > On Mon, 2003-10-13 at 21:28, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> And what is the difference between a 3:1 majority and a 3:1 super
> >> majority? If there is no difference, why can't the terms be used
> >> interchangeably?

Because there is no reason to add to the confusion if we can avoid it.

> > Using two different technical terms makes it seem like there is a
> > distinction. Also, a "3:1 majority" is a contradiction; a majority
> > is defined as "The greater number or part; a number more than half
> > of the total."[0]. If we require more than 50%+1, we no longer
>
> 	Last I looked, 75% (3:1 majority) is indeed a number greater
>  than half of the total. It does not say in the definition just a tad
>  bit over half so we can just barely call it a majority.

As i understand it, a majority is 50% +1, while anything else is a
super-majority. There is no such thing as a 75% majority or a 60%
majority. These are super-majorities, since they are clearly more than a
majority.

> > require a majority, we require a supermajority, "a specified
> > majority of votes, such as 60 percent, required to approve a motion
> > or pass legislation."[1]
>
> 	So, supermajority means a specified majority of votes -- so a
>  supermajority is a majority where we specify how much more than half
>  its gotta be. Ergo, supermajority is a sunset of a majority.

No a supermajority is more than a majority, as the super prefix hints
at. As thus it is a subset of a majority (there not being
supermajorities which are not majorities too, but there being majorities
which are not supermajorities).

I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
super majorities.

Friendly,

Sven Luther

```