Michael Slone wrote: >I really don't understand why people are afraid of the tiniest bit >of redundancy in the rules. Where we have irredundancy, it will >come back to haunt us.
It's about maintainability. The "one less" provision is only correct while natural players have their voting limits set to one by default. That's not inherent in the system; VLOP could quite reasonably start at five, say. >First, there is a difference between N + 1 and Unanimity, since >players could register and help bring something to quorum I'd rather have the veto actually work. >there's no reason to use the term ``positive infinity'' where >``unanimity'' will do. There is: style. The term "unanimity" as a synonym for a positive infinity originates with ratios of N/0. It describes that situation well. The other situations require a count that exceeds all natural numbers. That happens to involve the same positive infinity, in this particular hyperreal system, but it is *not* well described as "unanimity". Hence I prefer to reserve "unanimity" for ratios". >Third, I'd like to know the historical reasons for why the Speaker's >veto doesn't just kill the proposal. I interpret it as an attempt to kill it in the least intrusive manner possible. Changing quorum means that the voting period doesn't change, vote validity doesn't change, the results are announced as normal, and the proximate reason for failure is one that already existed. -zefram
