Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 04:53:48AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 11:06:52 +0200, Sven Luther <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> > On Tue, Oct 14, 2003 at 03:29:23AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 04:09:47 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis
> >> <email@example.com> 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.". 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.
> Then your understanding is incorrect.
Sure, sure whatever.
<... skipped lot of good english definitions ...>
> > I thus recommend that you replace all 3:1 majorities and such by 3:1
> > super majorities.
> You probably need to file another GR to change all such
> references in the constitutions, since there are several references
> to majority (section 4.1.2, 4.1.4, 6.1.4, and I guess A.6.3.2,3 need
> be clarified too).
Yep, that would be a problem, but anyway, to avoid confusion, just use
one word for the same thing in the whole text. Since the rest of the
constituion uses 3:1 majority, then let's use that everywhere, instead
of introducing the super-majority term.
I don't really care, but at least to avoid confusion, use one word only,
and not two different to say the same thing, in order to avoid doubt and