--- On Wed, 18/5/11, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: > On Tue, 17 May 2011, omd wrote: > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: > > >> This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): > > >> > > >> An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a > > >> ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice > > >> indicating which two of the available options e selects. > > Actually, I think we're just fine. The above clause conflicts > directly with this one: > (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the > voter. > and (c) takes precedence due to Cretans. > > That's my pre-CFJ opinion anyway.
If we are forced to select two options rather than one (fortunately, it's not looking that way at the moment), would that trigger AIAN? Or is there some way to resolve the deadlock? (Unfortunately, FOR+PRESENT doesn't seem to be legal under the two-options interpretation, and you can't have a proposal with a required vote to adopt below 50%+1, because even at AI 1 there's a separate rule requiring more FOR than AGAINST.) -- ais523
