On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:07:18PM -0400, Dennis Clarke wrote: > > I know of no country who has a threshold on the number of votes; the > > reason is simple: must the current governemnt stay when not enough people > > vote? No, terms end and even if only one person votes he gets to decide > > the new government. > > That is correct but it is not called democracry. It is called fascism.
No, it's not. Fascism is a long forgotten, oft-repeated, thuggish mode of governance. What you mean that is not having thresholds facilitates the onset of fascism. But I would argue that thresholds are not sufficient to prevent fascism. I would also argue that this is a monumental waste of our time. The issue is: what is the correct interpretation of the current rule? I don't know the answer to that. The next issue is: what should be the threshold for modifying this constitution by referendum? The answer to that is not of monumental importance, as it is in the case of a nation. So let's cool the political rhetoric :) > > Well, there's a rule and the rule is perhaps not very well thought out > > but that is the rule. > > That sort of thinking is called "Bureaucracy" and it is why companies like > GM go bankrupt and why countries collapse. OTOH, you need rules in order to be a "nation of laws" rather than a "nation of men." The OpenSolaris community is not a nation, but people are watching how we conduct ourselves, and if we have a rule we should follow it or amend it via a prescribed mechanism. If it turns out to be impossible to amend a universally hated rule via the prescribed mechanism THEN we have a real problem. Using the same sorts of terms you used: a fascist could argue that "secret ballots are not a good rule, so let's chuck it." Nico --
