On Nov 24, Richard Braakman wrote: > On Sun, Nov 24, 2002 at 12:59:07AM -0600, Chris Lawrence wrote: > > If Vote #1 loses, the game might be repeated ad nauseum until it > > passes. But at least the risk of lurching back and forth is reduced > > substantially, and this requires proponents to maintain a long-term > > interest in passage. It also encourages proponents to compromise with > > opponents (thus encouraging consensus), as gathering a 2:1 margin is > > relatively hard. > > I think we could have this benefit even without a supermajority > requirement, because our voting system is more sophisticated than > the yes/no model you're using. Suppose an option wins with only 51:49 > support. Just like in your scenario, the losers are pissed and > organize a new vote. However, both camps are now aware of how close > the margin is, so it's likely that several compromise options will > be added to the ballot, and those are likely to win with a larger > margin.
Except, we're stuck with the non-compromise in the meantime. If Vote #1 is "rm -rf ftp.debian.org:/debian/pool/non-free", it's going to be a bit of a pain to fix that :-) Chris -- Chris Lawrence <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> - http://www.lordsutch.com/chris/ Computer Systems Manager, Physics and Astronomy, Univ. of Mississippi 125B Lewis Hall - 662-915-5765 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]