On Fri, Oct 31, 2003 at 01:10:51PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote:
> The only real way out of this, it seems, is to advocate insincere
> voting. ("Please rank Mr. A's editorial-only amendments below 'further
> discussion' even if you like them, because the whole purpose of this
> ballot is to decide whether we're accepting or rejecting *substantive*
> amendments to the Social Contract".)
The claim, here, is that voting for "further discussion" on amendments
irrelevant to the topic at hand is "insincere".
[1] I don't see that there's any reason at all to agree that voting
"further discussion" on irrelevant amendments is an insincere choice.
[2] I agree with Manoj, that if the secretary deems the ammendment to
be orthogonal to the vote that the secretary has the power to put it on
a separate ballot.
And that assumes that the would-be detractors manage to come up with
something at least as important as the original proposal.
--
Raul
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
