Changes

I see that I may have disparaged your writing style.  No offense was intended.  You made a great improvement to an earlier version.  It seems that we each have our pet peeves:  you believe a definition shouldn't say what some people may think about the consequences of something; it should say what that something ''is''.  And I have a peeve about "when".  Other than that, you write well.

I see that I may have disparaged your writing style.  No offense was intended.  You made a great improvement to an earlier version.  It seems that we each have our pet peeves:  you believe a definition shouldn't say what some people may think about the consequences of something; it should say what that something ''is''.  And I have a peeve about "when".  Other than that, you write well.

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 22 December 2013 (EST)

[[User:SamHB|SamHB]] 22:40, 22 December 2013 (EST)

:You rewrote it say that the nuclear option is about, "the number of votes required to pass certain resolutions." I assume this is a reference to the majority vs supermajority issue. But it seems to me it could be clearer. Also, the phrase "normal rule" implies that the nuclear option is an extraordinary rule, i.e. a recognized rule, just not commonly used. Now that that the procedure has been used in an unambiguous way, I suppose it is. But whether nuclear option was valid or not was a highly controversial issue in 2005. The presiding officer is bound by the rules of the Senate, rules that do not include the nuclear option. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 02:40, 1 January 2014 (EST)

:I rewrote the opening and added additional material. Tell me what you think. [[User:PeterKa|PeterKa]] 21:20, 1 January 2014 (EST)