It has been argued that the Commission's support for amendment does not tell us much. After all, even minor or clerical "amendments" are still amendments -- so someone can support the "amend" option without wanting any substantial changes in the JA. Oni has identified himself as such a person.
However, this preference poll, as a ranked preference poll, provides us with rich data that gives us an answer to this question. A person who wants merely clerical or nonsubstantive amendments would nonetheless favor the Act in general. Such a person would have voted amend first, keep the act second. If a person feels that the idea of a formal judiciary is sound in principle , but that the Act is unworkable without changes, that person would vote for Amend First, Suspend second. Further, if that person thought that the general character of the Act was sound as is, even if substantial tinkering was needed, then "Keep the Act" would be their third choice. However, if the person thinks that substantial and deep changes, which even reach to the policy and basic structure of the Judiciary and the Act, are needed, then the person would prefer repealing the Act to keeping it as is.
A majority of the people who voted in favor of Amending the Act (3) fall into the last category. Only one proponent of Amendment falls into the first category -- and I have ranked this person as Pro-Act in my "up/down" formulation of the vote. This position lost.
Therefore, we can not only conclude that there is general consensus for amending the J.A. -- there is general consensus that this amendment must be substantial, perhaps radical. Again 9 of 15 commissioners had "keep the Act as is" as their last option -- preferring outright repeal to living under the Act in its current form. This is extremely meaningful.
Beathan