> > Obviously -- The paper defines "neutrality" as "all options are treated > > the same". If we are asserting a supermajority requirement on certain > > actions, like constitutional amendments, then we are not treating all > > options the same, and therefore lose neutrality.
On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 03:42:12PM -0500, Buddha Buck wrote: > > The remaining question: Do we want "neutrality"? > > > > "Neutrality" isn't always a desirable condition. On Fri, Nov 22, 2002 at 08:52:16PM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > I argue that we do want neutrality. It's the same thing as arguing > against supermajorities. What kind of neutrality do we want? > > Given the definition of the priviledged minority (those in opposition to > > the current proposed change) is so fluid and changeable, I find this > > conclusion to be overly strong based on the argument and evidence put > > forth. > > As I interpret the paper, the point is that any truly unpopular > proposition that is railroaded through will energize the opposition, and > result in its prompt repeal. This becomes meaningless if the vote replaces the system which allows prompt repeal with some other system. > Consider that if we do away with supermajority requirements under the > Constitution and all hell breaks loose, it will only take a simple > majority to restore them. If all hell breaks loose, do you think 50% + > 1 of the voters will agree on that fact? Are you talking 50% of 2000 debian developers + 1? Or are you talking 50% of the active voters + 1? [That's a halfway trick question: you're advocating making the system such that at some point in the future -- presumably after people are frustrated with some major failure -- it's easy to change this part of the system. But it would be interesting to know what you see as the starting point.] > > Likewise majority-rules can lead to situations where there is no > > stability, and adapted positions flip-flop back and forth between > > extremes. > > Why would they flip-flop between in extremes under our system, where we > can have multiple options on the ballot, and rank-ordering by the voter? You're advocating that that be subject to change. So it's at worth discussing the fundamentals of this kind of change. -- Raul
