On Wed, Aug 7, 2013 at 12:35 PM, Sam Stuewe <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2013-08-07 11:33, Sam Stuewe wrote: >> >> and non-votes are not the same as "no votes". Perhaps, instead of a >> super majority, requiring no less than a certain number of no votes >> would be a good idea. For instance, allowing 50%+1 to pass so long as >> there are no more than 33% would be a fairly functional model. > > To clarify, that would be "so long as there are no more than 33% voting > against." This creates an artificial super-majority which still only > requiring a simple majority to pass. >> >> All the best, >> >> -Sam
That's a good point, I agree.
