Re: Updated proposed ballot for the constitutional amendment (clarification of section 4.1.5)
On Tue, 14 Oct 2003 12:36:57 -0400, Anthony DeRobertis <firstname.lastname@example.org> said:
> On Tuesday, Oct 14, 2003, at 05:53 US/Eastern, Manoj Srivastava
>>> 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.
>> 2. The greater number; more than half; as, a majority of
>> mankind; a majority of the votes cast. [1913 Webster]
> So, then, 51% would be enough, but proposals A and C require
> 3:1. That's more than a majority; hence, supermajority.
Does no one look at definitions any more? A 51% supermajority,
or a 99% supermajority, are both majorities, and equally valid.
A supermajority is merely a majority where you explicitly
state how much the major part has to be compared to the whole (like,
50.0001% super majority)
> More important than arguing over definitions is, I think,
> consistency. Let's just pick one of the words for the GR. Using both
> words makes the reader wonder if there is a sane reason to do so,
> and he starts trying to figure out how a "3:1 majority" is different
> from a "3:1 supermajority". It seems to be fairly normal and
> expected to used the same word consistently in technical and legal
> documents (unlike novels, for example). I suggest we do so.
Well, kinda late in the game, no? The discussion period
started 2 weeks ago, and this was immediately preceded by *MONTHS*
where contributions and critiques were invited.
thinking about consistency and hobgoblins
When a Banker jumps out of a window, jump after him--that's where the
money is. Robespierre
Manoj Srivastava <email@example.com> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024R/C7261095 print CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C