Hi, Raul Miller schrieb:
>>This is silly. It seems like the constitution effectively says "if the >>resolution passes it required a simple majority; if it failed, it needed 3:1". > The only silliness is the verb tenses. Once some concept passes > supermajority it doesn't need to pass again, because it has already > passed. By what rule? The problem case is where the option has majority, but fails supermajority. It could then be argued that since it has majority, it constitutes proof that there should never have been a supermajority requirement and thus the simple majority suffices, or it could be argued that it failed supermajority, hence modifies a foundation document, hence requires supermajority. And it *will* be argued, no doubt. Simon -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
