ais523 wrote: > --- On Wed, 18/5/11, Kerim Aydin <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Tue, 17 May 2011, omd wrote: >>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:38 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >>>> On Tue, May 17, 2011 at 11:17 PM, omd <[email protected]> wrote: >>>>> This amendment modifies two clauses; the unexpected one is this (sigh): >>>>> >>>>> An eligible voter on a particular Agoran decision submits a >>>>> ballot to the vote collector by publishing a valid notice >>>>> indicating which two of the available options e selects. >> >> Actually, I think we're just fine. The above clause conflicts >> directly with this one: >> (c) The ballot clearly identifies the option selected by the >> voter. >> and (c) takes precedence due to Cretans. >> >> That's my pre-CFJ opinion anyway. > > If we are forced to select two options rather than one (fortunately, it's not > looking that way at the moment), would that trigger AIAN? Or is there some > way to resolve the deadlock? (Unfortunately, FOR+PRESENT doesn't seem to be > legal under the two-options interpretation, and you can't have a proposal > with a required vote to adopt below 50%+1, because even at AI 1 there's a > separate rule requiring more FOR than AGAINST.)
It doesn't trigger AIAN as long as "the Assessor announces some results and they're allowed to self-ratify" still works.
