>>>>> "Ian" == Ian Jackson <ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk> writes:
>> Do we throw said change away? We probably can't, because it's >> still a non-binding resolution, or something. Ian> In these cases, my proposal produces `FD'. >> Put otherwise, the idea of a "non-binding change to the >> constitution" seems to make no sense. Ian> I entirely agree. >> In other words, while I understand where you're coming from and >> why you believe this change is desirable, I think it does have >> some dangerous side effects that you may not have considered. I >> therefore strongly urge you (and everyeone who's seconded the >> original proposal) to reconsider, and decide whether you really >> believe the above-described scenario is in any way desirable, and >> I further urge you to come up with a solution to that problem >> before this is brought to a vote. Ian> I think if you read my proposal again you will see that it Ian> doesn't have the bad effect you identify. I think having FD win in many of these cases does itself produce exactly the bad effect that Wouter is describing. I'v also explained why I think it opens up greater strategic voting problems than the current constitution. --Sam