Raul Miller wrote: > > That's the way I read his suggestion, also. And that's what I was saying > is bad. I don't think you understood my objection. > > Here's the problem: a vote against an option can cause quorum to be met > and therefore cause the option to win. This discourages sincere votes > against the option.
i don't buy that logic. the case is true, and having X>Q votes causes the vote to be binding. you are assuming that only proponents of a ballot will bother to vote. if the proponent fails to get anyone interested in her ballot other than her self and her second, then votes against would have a sincere impact and prevent Further Discussion. i can see two major outcomes when X<Q: 1) the ballot sponsor withdrawls the ballot entirely (in which case Further Discussion, the defacto default option, is not invoked) 2) the ballot is put to a vote again, ballot unchanged. Further discussion is only invoked in an effort to get people to the polls. the whole supermajority thing i feel would make people vote insincerely. the ony way to avoid it, as i see it, is to _remove entirely_ the Quorum and Supermajority requirements. i may have misused/overloaded the term ballot, and used it when i should have used measure. it is due to a lack of clear udnerstanding the difference. i have really tried to follow the whole discussion, and the counting of Supermajority is daunting. -john
