Re: First Call for votes: General resolution for the handling of the non-free section
On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:32:57PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote:
> Since "STFU about it" (or "none of the above") would not be binding, I don't
> see how that differs from "further discussion" (which, AFAICS, is not binding
well, if NOTA beat FD then any attempt to revive the discussion within, say,
the next two years could be met with demands to STFU. pointless, perhaps, but
> If you want *some* resolution other than further discussion, and don't care
> which, then voting "112" would probably work--not expressing a preference
> between choices 1 and 2, but preferring those over 3. Note that that does
> contribute to the 3:1 supermajority needed to pass choice 1.
the closest match to what i want is "-12" (which is how i voted).
i would have preferred to be able to vote for NOTA before FD because i really
don't want any further discussion (i'm sick of the whole subject)....however, i
don't want my vote to place choice 1 at the same preference level as choice 3
(i.e. i want choice 1 even less than i want choice 3), so i couldn't just
ignore choice 3.
what bothers me is that the anti- non-free bigots will use reluctant FD votes
like mine as an excuse to continue this tedious "debate". that's what a NOTA
option would have been good for preventing - bogus claims of a mandate for