Gosh, it took a long time for someone to come up with 'Pat Mugabe'. Jamie's request for civility and maturity must be having some effect! 
Cindy-
You're quite right about the interpretation of numbers, they can lead to the wrong conclusions. I criticised the change to the minimum faction size for completeness, the change to the voting rules which you have picked up on, was the main target. Removing the elimination option in time for these by-elections was wrong and the SC should have ruled it out. I don't think it was a problem of sequencing, the SC discussed both issues pretty much simultaneously. The (unelected) SC has to consider its position very carefully in over-ruling the (elected) legislature and often errs on the side of caution. I think they were too cautious in this case and have set a very bad precedent.
Here's the example I gave to the SC which I hoped would illuminate the problem:
Imagine the CSDF had won 4 out of 7 seats in the January general election. Imagine that NuCARE later resigned their two seats in protest at some outrage perpetrated by the majority (changing the RA rules of procedure to the benefit of the major party for example) and refused to fill them thereby forcing a by-election. Imagine further that the RA then changed the election rules before the by-election fixing the minimum faction size at 12 and changing the electoral system to 'first-past-the-post' in two constituencies. These changes would greatly benefit the CSDF under those circumstances and disadvantage the other factions. But, according to the SC, this would be perfectly fine!
It was the failure of the SC to intervene and correct this which prompted me to publish the 'virtual Zimbabwe' post. Overblown? Possibly. Rhetoric? Certainly! Hyperbole? You could say so. But am I the only person greatly disturbed by this turn of events? I don't think I am.
