On Fri, Dec 01, 2000 at 07:04:02AM -0500, Branden Robinson wrote: > Which sheds a great deal of light on the motivations behind his "amendment" > to John Goerzen's proposal. Which was to be handled by having two votes, which would've required, initially, a simple majority in favour of John's proposal, then a 3:1 vote (assuming a supermajority was required for it to pass) in favour for it to succeed. Are you making these random snide comments about scare-quoted "amendments" because you actually believe them, or just to get a reaction, btw? Cheers, aj -- Anthony Towns <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/> I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred. ``Thanks to all avid pokers out there'' -- linux.conf.au, 17-20 January 2001
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [C... Thomas Bushnell, BSG
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Branden Robinson
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [C... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Anthony Towns
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Raul Miller
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Buddha Buck
- Re: Condorcet Voting and Supermajorities (Re: [CONSTI... Anthony Towns