On Tue, May 25, 2010 at 1:45 PM, Kerim Aydin <ke...@u.washington.edu> wrote: > I've been waiting for this one to come up. Regardless of the judgement > this is prime place for a legislative clarification. -G.
Rule 2127 only applies to the option selected by a particular ballot, so to allow for an indefinite increase in voting limit in the future you'd have to cast an infinite number of conditional ballots; since that's impossible, I think a much more plausible interpretation is that it's the voting limit at the time. (When I wrote the rule text, I considered specifying that it equals 1,000 votes or something like that, but decided that was too ugly and left it as is; I suppose a better solution would be allowing conditional votes to specify a conditional number, although that has the side-effect of allowing votes of the form "AGAINST if it would reach quorum even without this vote, no vote otherwise", which probably aren't possible right now..)
