Sam Hartman wrote:
Would someone mind giving me a few examples of how this works in practice? Let's say I propose a GR and get seconds and it comes to a vote with no amendments. Would the two options on the ballot be my GR and a default option of more discussion?
I think that, under the proposal as made, this is correct. I think that, as a matter of voting, it should be wrong. I hold the position that there should always be an option to reject, without more discussion, a GR.
When this has been brought up in the past, I believe that it has been recommended that a reject/status-quo amendment be proposed by someone who wants to reject the GR (and gets it seconded) as a way of getting a "reject" option on the ballot. It has also been mentioned that because of the way that GRs are proposed, there is little practical difference between "reject" and "further discussion". I don't agree with either of these.
I realize this is a simplistic example; my actual question has to do with how supermajorities work, but answering this question is sufficient to answer my real question.
Ask your actual question, then.