>>>>> "Anthony" == Anthony Towns <aj@azure.humbug.org.au> writes:
Anthony> On Tue, Feb 18, 2003 at 05:38:36PM -0500, Buddha Buck
Anthony> wrote:
>> Sam Hartman wrote: >Would the two options on the ballot be my
>> GR and a default option of >more discussion? I think that,
>> under the proposal as made, this is correct.
Anthony> Yes.
>> When this has been brought up in the past, I believe that it
>> has been recommended that a reject/status-quo amendment be
>> proposed by someone who wants to reject the GR (and gets it
>> seconded) as a way of getting a "reject" option on the ballot.
Anthony> Yes. If there are going to be more people voting to
Anthony> reject the proposal than accept it, this should not be a
Anthony> difficulty.
Ah, I think this might interact very badly with super majorities. Or
at least it seems important to educate the voters that they really
want to rank default above accept if they vote for reject.
I suspect that many voters--myself included-- would vote reject,
accept, default if they didn't like a proposal. If there are no super
majorities, this is a fine vote. But if there are super majorities,
this can allow the accept option to win even when it did not have a
high ratio ofver the default option.
