Because this is a constitution change, which requires a 3:1 super majority to change, a concept the Schulze method doesn’t really provide for. The issues arise

Because this is a constitution change, which requires a 3:1 super majority to change, a concept the Schulze method doesn’t really provide for. The issues arises from how the 3:1 ratio is calculated. Which is by comparing the number of “change it” votes to the number of the “None of the above (NOTA)” votes (this is my understanding of from the email thread). As a result the number of NOTA directly impacts the number to approval votes needed to win, as a simple majority isn’t enough. Thus having a NOTA option, and an option that looks like a NOTA can create confusion which splits the NOTA vote, because voting “keep public vote” above NOTA, which reduces the number of counted NOTA votes, and increases the number of “change it” votes (as all non-NOTA votes are considered “change it” votes, regardless of practical impact, at least that my understanding from the thread). Thus reduces number of approval votes need to achieve the super majority. As this vote was won by a single vote, voter confusion on how choice ordering regarding the NOTA option could have swung vote against the intentions of the voting members.