Reply to Tom Round of 12-09-96

[DEMOREP1 at aol.com]

Donald wrote:

Allow me to restate my position. I am in favor of Conclusive Majority (Super
Majority) of at least fifty-five percent for all bodies. That would require a
margin of at least ten percent over those that oppose a measure.

     But - I am opposed to the vote of a single person being this margin.
In either a Supreme Court or a City Council, I know that five out of nine is
more than fifty-five percent, but it is only the difference of one vote.
I wish to avoid the "flip-flop" condition in which the reversal of one vote
could mean the reversal of a measure at a later date. Therefore I feel that a
body of twenty or less should be an even number.

     We the people have the right to expect a body to make up their
collective minds one way or the other and to stick to that position with at
least the same amount of commitment as they had in making the decision -
which brings up another thought.

     Maybe we should have a rule which states: If a law is to be overturned
it can only be overturned by the same percentage by which the law was passed
in the first place. This is merely an idea I'm running up the flag pole to
see if anyone will salute it.
-----
D- I note the sequential winning percentages as follows
2 / 1   66.7
3 / 2   60.0
4 / 3   57.1
5 / 4   55.6
6 / 5   54.5
7 / 6   53.8
8 / 7   53.3
9 / 8   52.9
10 / 9   52.6

What magically happens at 6 to 5 according to Donald ?
I suggest that the flag be lowered from the flag pole.

There is, of course, a difference between "ordinary" laws and constitutions
(the latter of which is supposed to contain restrictions on mere majority
rule that are "fundamental"-- that is, those subject areas which bare
majorities (actually and historically indirect minorities due to various de
facto monarchial and oligarchial gerrymander schemes) have used to oppress
minorities (and majorities) creating a major historical crisis (such as death
penalty bills of attainer, ex post facto laws, military trials of civilians,
etc.).

I suggest that all election reformers read 
Sources of Our Liberties edited by Richard L. Perry (1959) which details the
long and very bloody background of much of the language in the U.S.
Constitution, Art. I, Secs. 9 and 10 and the first 8 amendments.

I also suggest that all election reformers read 
The Second Treatise of Government by John Locke (1690) which blasted the idea
of divine right of kings and supported majority rule.  The Second Treatise
was a basis of the American Revolution in 1775-1776 along with the ideas of
separation of powers in Spirit of the Laws by Baron Montesquieu.

We build on the tremendous pain, suffering and sacrifices of our ancestors.