Re: RFD: amendment of Debian Social Contract
On Sat, Nov 08, 2003 at 06:56:15PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> Anthony's example splits a potential "change social contract"
> supermajority into two, and yours splits it into three.
> This pretty much ensures the defeat of any option that requires a 3:1
> majority, and makes it extremely difficult even to satisfy a propostion
> that requires only a simple majority.
This doesn't make sense.
The thing that defeats an option -- even an option with a supermajority
requirement -- is that not enough voters think it's good enough.
This has nothing to do with how many options are on the ballot.
Of course, if enough people think something else is a better idea, it will
win because not enough people thought the lesser idea was good enough.
But this has nothing to do with supermajority.
Note also that statements which don't make sense pretty much make useless
the concept of referring back to the posts which contain them.