In the USA, Amendments to the Constitution require a 2/3 majority in Congress, and 3/4 of States to approve. There is no reason for every vote to be decided by a simple majority.

@brownyyy: He said the majority did not feel strongly enough to vote either way; is that incorrect?

He said the votes in favor were only a little more than against; is that incorrect?

He said the votes in favor were not a majority of the poll; is that incorrect?

@brownyyy: "The majority of respondents did not feel strongly enough about exclusivity to vote either yes or no,"

The chart does not show the opposite of that, it shows exactly what he says here.

"While the votes in favor of removing exclusivity marginally outnumbered those against, they did not represent a majority opinion in the poll."

The chart shows this too, as ~30% is not a majority of the poll.

I think you meant "the chart doesn't show a majority saying 'no'", not "the chart shows the opposite of what he is saying". Perhaps you didn't actually read what he said?

@gotrekfabian: At most, a third were in favor. That was not substantial enough to go back on a previous promise. Maybe for you it would be, but they didn't think it was. That doesn't mean the vote was pointless. If more people had supported it, they might have done it. A third in favor is far from a majority.

@autumnvarela: Some people might just think these backers don't deserve the same rewards because they didn't back the game soon enough. Unfortunately, however, some people still tie their value to their possessions, and I have known someone who had something made, and paid extra for the promise that the maker wouldn't make something similar for other people. If Star Trek is right, though, that will change within a couple hundred years, so there's that at least.

@gotrekfabian: To see if there was enough support to do it. There was not.

@fedor: I didn't say they were exclusive, but you have failed to substantiate your claim.

This isn't a debate. I am asking what I did that makes me a hypocrite. You have failed to explain, so at this point I can only assume the claim was false. I might as well believe in a Flying Spaghetti Monster, if I believe your unsubstantiated claim that I'm a hypocrite.

@fedor: "1. I'll take your avoidance of the question as a yes. So you're biased."

I'll take your avoidance of the question as a yes. So no, I didn't show any bias.

"2. I simply was willing to agree to disagree, you on the other hand acted like I was to stupid to understand your remedial (and incorrect) points. Basically I was going to end this childish exchange, you apparently want to continue."

(Quoting you again) "2. You still haven't refuted a single one of my points. You haven't even comprehended my post correctly, and it's not that hard to comprehend."

Now you're saying I was wrong to act like you are too (two "o"s, mind you) stupid to understand, when you had done the same to me? Does that make you a hypocrite again?

@fedor: "Do you have anything of value to add? Because you're getting dangerously close to trolling."

So am I not a hypocrite then?

Anyway, do you have anything of value to add? Because you're getting dangerously close to trolling.

@fedor: "Are you not a feminist? Yes? Well you're biased then... Wanna try and argue the definition of biased as well? lol."

I don't think I said I was. Regardless, I didn't say I wasn't biased, I said I hadn't shown any bias. Once again, subtleties and nuance are wasted on you.

"Hey weirdo, you left. Then you tried to sneak back in here. I didn't even "attack" you. It's not my fault you don't understand the term hypocrite."

Fine, "mocked" is appropriate to describe "Lol, yea. Take your ball and run.", at least, if you won't accept "attacked". And the fact that I "don't understand the term hypocrite" has nothing to do with you mocking me for leaving, and then trying to leave yourself.