On Mon, Mar 08, 2004 at 07:32:57PM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > Since "STFU about it" (or "none of the above") would not be binding, I don't > see how that differs from "further discussion" (which, AFAICS, is not binding > either).
well, if NOTA beat FD then any attempt to revive the discussion within, say, the next two years could be met with demands to STFU. pointless, perhaps, but possibly satisfying. > If you want *some* resolution other than further discussion, and don't care > which, then voting "112" would probably work--not expressing a preference > between choices 1 and 2, but preferring those over 3. Note that that does > contribute to the 3:1 supermajority needed to pass choice 1. the closest match to what i want is "-12" (which is how i voted). i would have preferred to be able to vote for NOTA before FD because i really don't want any further discussion (i'm sick of the whole subject)....however, i don't want my vote to place choice 1 at the same preference level as choice 3 (i.e. i want choice 1 even less than i want choice 3), so i couldn't just ignore choice 3. what bothers me is that the anti- non-free bigots will use reluctant FD votes like mine as an excuse to continue this tedious "debate". that's what a NOTA option would have been good for preventing - bogus claims of a mandate for further discussion. craig
