Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: GRs, irrelevant amendments, and insincere voting
- From: Raul Miller <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Date: Sun, 2 Nov 2003 02:45:52 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031102024552.C2045@links.magenta.com>
- In-reply-to: <20031031181051.GG28240@deadbeast.net>; from email@example.com on Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500
- References: <20031029212528.GS11418@deadbeast.net> <20031029221045.GG6152@kalypso.caradhras.net> <20031030050438.GZ11418@deadbeast.net> <20031030150329.GA18067@frantica.lly.org> <20031030151509.GA2827@wile.excelhustler.com> <20031031054451.GA16260@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031031060405.GB16260@azure.humbug.org.au> <20031031181051.GG28240@deadbeast.net>
On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> If it does, and is reasked, what's to stop a group of 6 people from
> proposing an "amendment" that guts the original proposal down to nothing
> but uncontroversial cosmetic alterations?
At that point you have an amendment, which (presuming 6 is sufficient
at that time) will be included on the ballot.
If a sufficient majority (many more than 6) votes for that amendment,
it wins. Otherwise, it doesn't win.
> This transforms our majoritarian system into one where a very small
> minority has veto power over any proposal -- even ones supposedly
> subject to a regular majority vote.
How is an amendment appearing on the ballot equivalent to a veto?