| |
In lugnet.admin.general, Todd Lehman writes:
> In lugnet.cad.dev, lehman@javanet.com (Todd Lehman) writes:
> > To be perfectly candid, I'm still a tiny bit nervous about 2/3 (66.67%). I
> > would have no worries, however, about 4/5 (80%).
>
> I take it back. I just had a short talk with my father about voting ratios,
> and there's something important I was overlooking...
>
> 2/3 (66.67%) is a good number after all. 5/7 (71.4%) isn't bad either, but
> 2/3 is much simpler to express, and it has much precedent in governments.
Yes it does though, IMO, I think a slightly greater majority (just under 5%
more) is worth considering (and you probly already have so this section is
more or less a waste of bandwidth on my part). 2/3 is much simpler to express,
but I hafta admit I'd rather have a slightly wider majority than simpler math.
> The good part about high numbers like 4/5 is that it's hard to do X. It
> takes at least four people in favor of X for every one person not in favor
> of X, to make X happen.
Yeah, 4/5 sounds great when you agree with everyone in the numerator. When you
don't, it's a steep uphill battle every stinkin time.
> Some numbers in practice:
>
> * It takes a 1/2 majority in the U.S. House of Representatives to impeach a
> President. The reverse: All it takes is a 1/2 majority to prevent
> impeachment.
>
> * It takes a 2/3 majority in the U.S. Senate to remove the President. The
> reverse: All it takes is a 1/3 minority to prevent removal from office.
Note that there are also two separate voting sessions by two completely
different groups of people to get the Prez thrown out. That's quite a safety
net, as we saw with the current Prez. Why was the greater ratio needed in the
Senate and not the House?
> * It takes a 3/4 majority of U.S. States to throw out the U.S.
> Constitution. The reverse: All it takes is a 1/4 minority to prevent
> the Constitution from being thrown out.
Apparently it's got to be a real stinker of a law to get tossed. Or you just
have to know the right Judge.
> * It takes a 12/12 majority (unanimous) in a jury to convict someone. The
> reverse: It only takes a 1/12 minority to prevent conviction.
Which is interesting as, IMO, this seems to relate more to our current
situation, though we don't need unanimity, as a person's life is not on the
line here. But also in this example, it's only 12 peers here, not the size of
the newsgroup in question. It seems like in a larger body of people that
chances of unanimity decrease.
-Tom McD.
when replying, visit the tour of the treasure and artifacts of King
Spamcakomen coming soon to a civic center near you!
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) It doesn't really have anything to do with which body, it just has to do with the ordering. It's a two-step thing. A 1/2 majority is required in order to do a CFV (call for votes), then a 2/3 majority is required to pass the measure. As I (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: i admit i was wrong
|
| (...) I take it back. I just had a short talk with my father about voting ratios, and there's something important I was overlooking... 2/3 (66.67%) is a good number after all. 5/7 (71.4%) isn't bad either, but 2/3 is much simpler to express, and it (...) (25 years ago, 16-Aug-99, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
3 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
