[Discussion] Simple vs 2/3 Majority

**m_1512** · September 14, 2011, 07:38 AM

Well, another factor I noticed, it takes 2/3 votes for anything to pass.

If you would see democratically, many nations follow simple majority of non-abstaining votes.
What is the necessity of such?
Why can't simple majority suffice?

**Romanos IV** · September 14, 2011, 09:22 AM

No, don't open that discussion. Please.

**Squid** · September 14, 2011, 09:49 AM

Just search for the dozens of other threads that have tried to change this. I don't think repeating the same arguments again and again is going to do anything beneficial.

**MasterBigAb** · September 14, 2011, 10:27 AM

I think the last discussion/try/vote was only a few weeks ago wasn't it ?!

**Genius of the Restoration** · September 14, 2011, 11:40 AM

Please, not again. It's been rejected twice in four months already. The OP's question has been raised in those threads and I've responded to them as have others. If you really wish to reignite the debate, I suggest you respond to those posts that address your example, because I don't want to have to copy my responses to the same question like I did in the last proposed amendment.

**Legio** · September 14, 2011, 01:58 PM

I'd oppose lowering it from the 2/3 majority, really.

**pannonian** · September 14, 2011, 02:57 PM

Put it another way, in mod staff, and Hex even more so, things are done on the basis of reasonable consensus. A strong no can effectively block any proposal, which is delayed until the caveats are satisfactorily dealt with, or stopped altogether if they're not. The Curia doesn't need quite that level of unanimity, as a 2/3 majority will put any proposal through. Seen from that perspective, 2/3 doesn't seem that unreasonable. Work through your idea and see it through, and it's not that difficult to get that number.