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 08:22:50 -0500
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20031102082250.D2045@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:
> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> amendments to the Social Contract".)
The claim, here, is that voting for "further discussion" on amendments
irrelevant to the topic at hand is "insincere".
 I don't see that there's any reason at all to agree that voting
"further discussion" on irrelevant amendments is an insincere choice.
 I agree with Manoj, that if the secretary deems the ammendment to
be orthogonal to the vote that the secretary has the power to put it on
a separate ballot.
And that assumes that the would-be detractors manage to come up with
something at least as important as the original proposal.