Hi Kurt, On Sun, Mar 27, 2022 at 11:03 AM Kurt Roeckx <k...@roeckx.be> wrote: > > Clearly people don't think it's identical, otherwise it would not have > been an option, or people would have voted it equally.
People were confused. Given the stated intent of Option 3 that "early 2022 is not the time for rushed changes like this", the Secretary should not have admitted that option to the ballot. It inadvertently weakened the constitutional protection against changes to the constitution. The constitution is the project's foundational document. Neither the option's proponents nor the voters understood the deleterious effect. (Nor did I.) At a minimum, the public was entitled to a warning from the Project Secretary. The vote was procedurally defective. > Option 3 has no effect on the majority results. The options are compared > to the NOTA option. Folks opposing "secret votes" should never have placed Option 2 ahead of NOTA, and would not have done so if Option 3 had been absent. I do not believe it is possible to reconstruct the electorate's intent solely from the beat matrix. A better approximation, however, would be to also consider the 107 votes who placed Option 3 ahead of Option 2 in the latter's majority test. That would yield 185 / (61 + 107) = 1.1 which is less than the factor of 3 mandated by section 4.1.2 of the constitution. As far as I can see, the result is unconstitutional and thus invalid. > I currently don't see anything wrong with this vote, so I see no reason > to redo it. Please reconsider. Otherwise the project's sole alternative may be to replace the Project Secretary. Thank you! Kind regards, Felix Lechner
