Re: GR: Constitutional Amendment to fix an off-by-one error and duplicate section numbering
>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's
>> still a non-binding resolution, or something.
Ian> In these cases, my proposal produces `FD'.
>> Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the
>> constitution" seems to make no sense.
Ian> I entirely agree.
>> In other words, while I understand where you're coming from and
>> why you believe this change is desirable, I think it does have
>> some dangerous side effects that you may not have considered. I
>> therefore strongly urge you (and everyeone who's seconded the
>> original proposal) to reconsider, and decide whether you really
>> believe the above-described scenario is in any way desirable, and
>> I further urge you to come up with a solution to that problem
>> before this is brought to a vote.
Ian> I think if you read my proposal again you will see that it
Ian> doesn't have the bad effect you identify.
I think having FD win in many of these cases does itself produce exactly
the bad effect that Wouter is describing. I'v also explained why I
think it opens up greater strategic voting problems than the current
constitution.
--Sam
Reply to: