Zefram wrote:
"Ordinary" proposals are not the most common type.
Maybe a reason for a different name, but "House" doesn't seem any better.
How about "Skewed", to contrast with "Democratic"?
As previously noted, the US House and Senate have voting strengths
directly in line with their propose
Ed Murphy wrote:
>If the restriction comes from the securing rule, then circumventing
>it requires (SR's power + 0.1). If it comes from R1688, then
>circumventing it requires (SR's power * 1.1).
Nope. Either way, circumventing it requires only the SR's power: at
that power an instrument can amen
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be
altered as allowed by that rule, up to a maximum of 1.1 times
the securing rule's power.
I think it's stupid to allow a threshold higher than the power of the
defining rule. Such a thres
Zefram wrote:
Ed Murphy wrote:
I'm not sure that this actually does what you suggest.
What's the flaw in it?
Defining a change as secured is equivalent to making it IMPOSSIBLE
except as allowed by an instrument etc.
That seems pretty much equivalent to mine. The biggest differe
Ed Murphy wrote:
>There are currently no ways to make it irrational, and even if there
>were, it would only last until the end of the week.
Yes. Defining it to be restricted to rationals would have explanatory
benefit.
>I still think we should use sheqelim and agorot somewhere or other.)
Yes, I
Ed Murphy wrote:
> threshold defaults to the securing rule's power, but CAN be
> altered as allowed by that rule, up to a maximum of 1.1 times
> the securing rule's power.
I think it's stupid to allow a threshold higher than the power of the
defining rule. Such a threshold is trivi
Ed Murphy wrote:
>I'm not sure that this actually does what you suggest.
What's the flaw in it?
> Defining a change as secured is equivalent to making it IMPOSSIBLE
> except as allowed by an instrument etc.
That seems pretty much equivalent to mine. The biggest difference that
I see i
7 matches
Mail list logo
