Sure, if you want to be pedantic. However the specific 7/8 number was unprecedentedly high compared to numbers used in previous propositions to the extent that it probably shouldn't have even been included in a honest piece of legislation.
Why? That objection is surreal -- you're taking the position that there's nothing wrong with a 101% threshold, and there's nothing wrong with a 70% threshold, but an 88% threshold goes too far? Too far in what direction? "Numbers you can mention aloud in polite company"?
> you're taking the position that there's nothing wrong with a 101% threshold, and there's nothing wrong with a 70% threshold, but an 88% threshold goes too far?
That wasn't my position. My position is that a 88% threshold in practice might as well be 101% and it is dishonest to include it and pretend like it is the near equivalent of 70%.
My comment on the pedantry was mostly on the fact that a lack of threshold is a null value and not equivalent to 101%. A null value is not larger than 88%. This 88% value is higher than previous propositions that have included a threshold and is therefore "unprecedentedly high".
