Hi, Linda,
And a happy spring to you, too! It sure feels like it where I am right now (50's,
sunny, breezy as all heck :-).
The 2/3 vote really is less of an issue under preference voting, because it's not all
or nothing. Suppose we have just two options A & B; then there are four types of
ballots:
1) Option A
2) Option A then Option B
3) Option B
4) Option B then Option A
Suppose 100 people cast ballots, with the following distribution:
#1: 36
#2: 19
#3: 28
#4: 17
On the face of it, the sum of people who's first choice is Option A, 36 + 19 = 55, is
less than 2/3. But Option B as the first choice is a smaller value at 17 + 28 = 45, so it
clearly loses. And to continue the preference voting we must consider the people who allow
for option A as their second choice. Then we end up with 55 + 17 = 72, which is more than
2/3.
Scott
On Thursday, March 20, 2008 3:26 PM MT, Linda Boorom <lboorom(a)fuse.net> wrote:
oooh Scot, hope you didn't misread my message,it's not the
presiding officer issue, I somehow think
that will pass with no problems. I'm just trying to make sure
it won't fail because the term limit
couldn't come up with a 2/3 majority along with it.
maybe my brain is in a cloud. (although thank goodness the sun
is shining in Cincinnati today &
helping to dry things up a bit)
Happy SPRING today!