On Mon, Mar 28, 2022 at 12:26:51PM -0600, Sam Hartman wrote: > >>>>> "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.
So the only thing I see is that they now had the option to express there preferences, while they were limited in how to express their preference without option 3. One way of interpreting the NOTA option is to look say what you think is acceptable or not. Without option 3 on the ballot, you can not say you think option 1 and 2 are acceptable but prefer option 3. You need to say option 1 and 2 are not acceptable, while you actually think they are acceptable. With option 3 on the ballot you can really talk about it being acceptable or not. Without option 3, it's probably beter to talk about preference rather than being acceptable. If you prefer no change, you just mark it below the NOTA option, even when you think option 1 or 2 is acceptable. Option 3 being on the ballot can make it more likely for option 1 and 2 to pass, but that's because people can actually express their opinion. Our voting system works best when all option are on the ballot. Adding more options is not a problem, it has clone independence. > 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. But option 2 won, so even if there were people who voted strategically, it's not a problem in this vote. On a ballot with mixed majority requirements the option with the lowest majority requirement clearly has an advantage. It might be possible to fix that by requiring all option to have the highest majority requirement, but I'm not really sure it's better or not. Kurt
