[ga-rules] Proposal for moving forward

["Patrick Corliss" <patrick@quad.net.au>]

On Tue, 17 Jul 2001 10:19:59 -0700, William S. Lovell wrote:
Subject: Re: [ga] Proposal for moving forward

> I concur on the allowance of more time for discussing the issue, even
> though I believe it now to be a foregone conclusion, and have given
> my "yeah" on the poll.  However, I think there is a fundamental flaw
> in the thinking of just about everyone here.

I think that this environment is more intransigent that you imagine.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=intransigent&db=*

> The premise seems to be that there must already have been reached
> what looks like a "consensus" approval of an Issue before there can be
> a vote on it. If that were the case, why have the Vote?

Ans = To satisfy thos who question the legitimacy of the process.

<snip>

> There will be other circumstances in which the outcome of a Vote could
> not be predicted in advance. And that, of course, is the fundamental
> reason why Votes are carried out in the first place. This notion of only
> agreeing to have a Vote when it appears that the "yeahs" have it is really
> quite a perversion of the whole concept of democracy.

Not at all.  A Parliament may have a commanding majority but they still need
to go "through the motions" to demonstrate their mandate.

There have been many occasions where a vote has been carried by an
overwhelming majority by such a body.  That doesn't mean that a formal
process wasn't needed in the first place.

Regards
Patrick Corliss





--
This message was passed to you via the ga-rules@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe ga-rules" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html