>>>>> "Kurt" == Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> writes:
>> It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against
>> changes to the constitution.
Kurt> I currently fail to see how it does.
I think Felix's point is that if we had choice 1, 2 and Nota,
People who preferred option 3 would vote N>2=1 or some such.
Because choice 3 was on the ballot, people had options that reflected
their preferences and so some of those people voted 3>2>N.
I.E. voters tend to shy away from ranking options below NOTA.
In super-majority races, we effectively ask voters two questions:
1) Do you think the option is acceptable--that is, do you rank it above
NOTA.
2) Which option do you prefer.
Felix's point is that the voters who preferred option 3 actually had the
power to make it win, provided they were willing to say that they found
option 2 unacceptable.
Felix's assumption is that if they realized they had that power, they
would have exercised it.
That's doubtless true for some voters: our voting system is complicated.
However, I've generally found that Debian members are fairly good about
distinguishing what they consider acceptable and what they consider
their prference.
My suspicion is that a good chunk of voters did vote correctly according
to their desires.
My suspicion is that many of the people who would prefer to reaffirm our
old voting system also found the change acceptable.
