User blog comment:TopsyKretts3/The Voting Standards Act/@comment-3255675-20130608221211/@comment-2052424-20130609054318

Thank you for your input, though there are some things I do wish to address.

The two-thirds majority is in place because, if a resolution is controversial or detrimental enough to get vetoed, then a simple 50% + 1 is not enough to un-veto it, it needs to be something which speaks for the whole of the wiki, not just a small majority, but an overwhelming one.

Voting; Section 6: "In the case of voting to overturn a veto, the Bureaucrat responsible for the veto may not cast a vote." The blog is just a rundown of the more controversial parts of the Act, click the link at the top for the full thing.

While there is more than one Bureaucrat, of them all only Zero is active, the rest are in retirement.

While someone may get 50 edits by 'cheating', they would go up against some wiki rules. For instance, if they make 50 edits of adding 'Hi' to pages, it would be considered spam.

Bureaucrats, Admins, Moderators - they have never been 'regular wikians'. Equality among editors is equality of opportunity, not equality of outcome. If we go by the latter, we would be giving staff abilities, such as banning, to all users.