Re: [wg-review] The Number 2 Problem (solution)

[Bret Busby <bret@clearsol.iinet.net.au>]

Chris McElroy wrote:
> 
> Then in that case we will have to have a definition for each.
> 
> Strong Consensus = ?%
> Consensus = ?%
> Near Consensus = ?%
> 
> and whatever other definitions you wish to come up with making the process
> more difficult for the average person to understand. If that is anyone's
> goal here, to make things more complicated, then I retract any agreement
> about consensus at all and go back to where I started in line with Karl's
> thinking. One person, one vote.
> 
Forgive my naivety, but, what is wrong with a simple majority?

Are elections not won, using simple majority (when voting for a
representative, who gets the most votes, wins), and, are referenda and
plebiscites, not decided, by using simple majorities?

How many seats would be left vacant at elections, and, how many
questions in referenda and plebiscites, would be defeated, if a 2/3
majority was required?

To me, a simple majority, is the simplest, and, most expedient, way of
deciding an issue.

-- 

Bret Busby

Armadale, West Australia

......................................
"So once you do know what the question actually is, you'll know what the
answer means."
 - Deep Thought, Chapter 28 of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
 - Douglas Adams, 1988 
......................................
--
This message was passed to you via the wg-review@dnso.org list.
Send mail to majordomo@dnso.org to unsubscribe
("unsubscribe wg-review" in the body of the message).
Archives at http://www.dnso.org/archives.html