Our current Article I based upon the DG2 Constitution:


I. The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.

This one is a keeper ;).

I think we should probably retain our ratification process as far as the citizens go, but I think we should decide whether or not to keep the senate. If we keep it, we should add provisions in the CoL for at-large senators so that we have at least three senators at all times (I don't like the concept of one senator being able to unilaterally veto an amendment). Perhaps we should remove this power from the Senate altogether, given that an amendment can pass 29-2 in the Congress but fail because it was rejected 2-1 in the Senate, even with three senators.

At this point my only change would be to drop the last sentence regarding the Senate. I see no reason that the Senate needs to vote on something that has already passed the full citizenry (by whatever margin we decide on).

This one will require some discussion, and may not be resolved until we define our Legislature in Article E.

Some questions:

- If we do remove the Senate from this process, should we raise the bar for approval by the citizenry? It's currently a simple majority, but should we raise it to 60%? Or 2/3rds?
We shouldn't make it too easy to change our Constitution.

- Do we want to base our approval majority on a fixed "Full Census" as described here? Or should the results be based on the actual number of citizens participating in the poll?

- Do we need both an active census and a full census defined in our Constitution? What would they be used for in our CoL?

In response to DZ's questions.

1) We should definetely make changing the constitution require more than a simple majority. 2/3 sounds goo.d

2) I think basing it off of the full census would make more sense. Otherwise we run the risk of very few of the active voters having a greater influence than intended.

3) I don't have much background here, but I thought the full census would be used for constitutional votes, and the active census used for CoL votes if the CoL votes required other than simple majority of votes in the poll.

I'll respond to them as well:

1. I don't think we should raise the bar for participation in the poll even if we do eliminate the Senate. It would be hard enough to get the necessary number of people (half of the ones that voted in the Presidential election) to vote and then to vote yes. I think it would be overkill to require more than that to vote in favor, and it would make constitutional amendment almost impossible. This assumes, however, that we're doing this based on the full census like we have done in the past demogames; if we're not basing it on the census, then raising the majority needed for ratification to 3/5 or 2/3 sounds like a good idea.

2. I think we should base it on the full census like it has been in previous demogames.

3. Last demogame, the active census was somewhat of a waste as it was never used. However, we may decide to incorporate it into quorums for CoL and possibly CoS amendments.

I am against the general philosophy that the constitution needs to be difficult to change, and even more so against giving a small number of people (34% of the senate to be specific) the power to veto amendments. A simple majority of the people voting in the amendment poll, with an active census represented, would be enough for me.

We may wish to table this discussion until after the structure of the government is finalized.

Nonetheless, we should poll a number of options once we decide to move forward on this topic.

Status quo
Different Percentages

Changing the Constitution should be a difficult task. Given our size, I think a 2/3 majority of votes, census at 2/3 of full census, no Senate ratification would work.

The CoL should be much easier to change (single majority, census at 1/2 of Full Census).

I think we can remove the Active Census numbers.

-- Ravensfire

I actually think that the Constitution should be difficult to change, and that we should keep the Senate in the process. Keep the percentage for the Senate to ratify 67% if we're going to elect Senators-at-Large, but lower it to 51% if we're sticking to the Senate being made up of Governors.

And NEVER USE the full census. The only time we'll ever be able to meet it is in Term 1, and probably not even then.

Originally posted by zorven
Our current Article I based upon the DG2 Constitution:

I. The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.



The census of the DG population changes every term. basing our amendment changes on the most current census only makes sense. But I have seen candidates bring in voters they have recruited, for the main purpose of getting elected, that never again appear in the DG. I've seen over 50 votes on a Presidential election or two or three. That just goes to show how crooked our election system can be...but that's another story.

I personally think that Constitutional ammendments should require 2/3 of the active census, and that the Senate ratification should be dropped.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
This one will require some discussion, and may not be resolved until we define our Legislature in Article E.

Some questions:

- If we do remove the Senate from this process, should we raise the bar for approval by the citizenry? It's currently a simple majority, but should we raise it to 60%? Or 2/3rds?
We shouldn't make it too easy to change our Constitution.

- Do we want to base our approval majority on a fixed "Full Census" as described here? Or should the results be based on the actual number of citizens participating in the poll?

- Do we need both an active census and a full census defined in our Constitution? What would they be used for in our CoL?

In answering your questions, DZ ~

1. As stated above, 2/3 of the Active Census should be required for a Constitutional amendment.

2. Use the Active Census, as achieving the "Full Census" may be unattainable when candidate bring in voters from Antartica to vote for them. ;) These 50+ vote Presidential elections are outrageous. We have what? 20 - 25 active citizens?

3. Yes, both Full and Active Census' should be kept by the Judicial system in the first post for that department every term.

Well, what if we modify the levels of full and active census, to make them more "relevant"

Full: Average of vote totals in most recent election cycle
Active: 2/3 of median vote total in most recent election cycle

Note, median vs mean is intentional here.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire
Active: 2/3 of median vote total in most recent election cycle


I was looking over the 2/3rds of the median vote totals. Sometimes that can result in a descimal point. Are we going to be rounding up or down.

Rounding up: 4.5 becomes 5
Rounding down: 5.5 becomes 5

Assume we are rounding up, because if we rounded down we would have less than 2/3.

CG,

It is impossible for the median of a set of whole numbers to be anything other than a whole number. I think you've confused mean with median.

[stat mode]

Here's an example. The set of numbers (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 25).
Mean: (3+4+5+6+8+20) / 6 = 8.5
Median: 5 (I was taught in a even-numbered set, to take the number left of the mid-point).

The median is not the average. It is the number in the middle of the set listed in ascending order. It tends to reduce the impact of outliers - see the example above. The number 25 is well above the norm, and this causes the mean to be pulled higher. The median is more towards the general range of numbers.
[/stat mode]

Now, assuming you mean the mean, you simply pick one and remain constant. This would go in the book where the calculation for the census is detailed.

-- Ravensfire

That is debatable, I was taught to take two numbers closest to the mid-point and average them to get the median in an even-numbered set. Using your set as an example:
The median of (3,4,5,6,8,20) = 5.5

Originally posted by Cyc
...I've seen over 50 votes on a Presidential election or two or three. That just goes to show how crooked our election system can be...but that's another story.Well, we could always do away with the secret ballot and have everyone declare their votes via post in the appropriate election thread. Of course, this will never happen because certain individuals don't want to have to defend their voting record.

I personally wouldn't really mind that, but the less active users may be less inclined to post their vote than the more active ones, and as such it may disenfranchise the lurkers to some degree.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I personally wouldn't really mind that, but the less active users may be less inclined to post their vote than the more active ones...... and this would be bad because...?

Originally posted by Bootstoots
... it may disenfranchise the lurkers to some degree. sorry boots, but this is wrong. To disfranchise (or disenfranchise) someone, you must actually deprive that individual of the right to vote. Simply changing the method from a secret ballot to a open one cannot do that.

Okay, I'll admit that my usage of the word disenfranchise was a bit erroneous, but the intent is clear. Anyway, I'm rather neutral on this topic; it doesn't really matter to me whether we do it by secret ballot or open post.

I would support open ballots in the elections. Those of us that truly wanted to vote would do so. Plus if a President was elected by 25 people we have never heard from, we would know that too.

Edit:But I still stand by the statement I made in post #12 of this thread.

Originally posted by Bootstoots
That is debatable, I was taught to take two numbers closest to the mid-point and average them to get the median in an even-numbered set. Using your set as an example:
The median of (3,4,5,6,8,20) = 5.5

With apologies to Samuel Clemons,
"There are lies, damn lies, and statisticians!"

Gotta love it! Either approach will work great, we just need to mention it. I can handle the averaging the two numbers.

I would also suggest that, when averaging and w/ the median, we simply drop all fractions. Simple, easy, and does keep the levels just slightly lower.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by FortyJ
Originally posted by Bootstoots
less inclined to post their vote than the more active ones, and as such it may disenfranchise the lurkers to some degree.
... and this would be bad because...?
Well, we do have several members that started as pure lurkers, then started to vote in polls, then started to spout off in threads. Next thing you know - someone like me is around!

I wouldn't mind a more definitive method of voting that has less of a chance of "irregularities". We shouldn't, however, force citizens to make their votes public. Some people (me!) do sometimes argue various sides of various issues to make sure all factors are considered, and all viewpoints made known. I've also been known to reflect and vote differently from my initial stated preference.

Sigh - as if "Legal Instructions" isn't going to be enough of a debate. This too could become involved.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by Cyc


The census of the DG population changes every term. basing our amendment changes on the most current census only makes sense. But I have seen candidates bring in voters they have recruited, for the main purpose of getting elected, that never again appear in the DG. I've seen over 50 votes on a Presidential election or two or three. That just goes to show how crooked our election system can be...but that's another story.

I personally think that Constitutional ammendments should require 2/3 of the active census, and that the Senate ratification should be dropped.

I fully agree with Cyc's position.

The Constitution should require a lot of effort to change. The CoL should be simple majority

Originally posted by FortyJ
Well, we could always do away with the secret ballot and have everyone declare their votes via post in the appropriate election thread. Of course, this will never happen because certain individuals don't want to have to defend their voting record.

It could very well be done if we write a rule or law making it so. Haven't you ever seen the Ten commandments? So let it be written. So let it be done! :egypt: (BTW - I am all for doing away with the secret ballot.)

Back to the topic at hand. Someone wondered what the census(es) could be used for. I realize some have answered this but I would add that in addition to setting the bar for passing laws and constitutional amendments the census can be used to set an appropriate quorum for polls, if we decide we need one. Yes, ravensfire, this could become involved. Your :( is no where near as mine on this subject since I've been involved in these same debates since DG1! There is nothing new in this thread, it's all been talked about before. (sigh)

I am in favor of making the constitution difficult to change and the code of laws not so difficult to change. I am also in favor of eliminating the Senate confirmation / veto of amendments.

I suggest we take a lesson from the DG3 constitution (a venerable document) and only worry here about specifying what will be needed to change the constitution. We can specify the CoL amendment process in the CoL.

Here is my proposed wording for this article:

The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested national elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the constitution

A majority of the Full census.....I believe that would work. :) I like this wording; what does everyone else think?

I have an announcement to make regarding the Open Vote. It quite simply won't happen. I will open a thread tomorrow giving my reasoning, because I don't want to threadjack this discussion. Sorry for the suspense, but I am calling it a night. ;)

Originally posted by donsig


Here is my proposed wording for this article:

The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested national elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the constitution

How about this, stated in two parts since different people may agree with different parts... Reasoning for the changes is, on the first part it clarifies that exactly one term's worth of elections (the current one) is being counted, and on the second part I strongly believe that a poll with more yes votes than no should pass as long as the number of votes is not trivially low.

The average of the number of votes cast in each of the contested national elections for the current term shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress).

A majority of those voting, with a minimum total votes cast equal to or greater than a majority of the Congress, shall be required to amend the constitution

I would also agree to all of the active census in place of a majority of Congress in part 2 above. What I don't want to see is a full census of 50 and active census of 25, requiring 26 yes votes to pass an amendment when there are really only 25 active players.

If it weren't so difficult to calculate, I'd propose an actual measurement of how many people are actively contributing, such as "The active census is defined as the number of people who have posted substantial material (i.e. more than a 'me too' type post) in the last 14 days."

donsig,

I like the proposal - simple and still makes it difficult to alter the constitution, especially for a controversial proposal. As it has been brought up, I would suggest adding to the active census that all fractions are dropped.

I also quite agree about the CoL.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by DaveShack

A majority of those voting, with a minimum total votes cast equal to or greater than a majority of the Congress, shall be required to amend the constitution

I would also agree to all of the active census in place of a majority of Congress in part 2 above. What I don't want to see is a full census of 50 and active census of 25, requiring 26 yes votes to pass an amendment when there are really only 25 active players.


I for one think the constitution should be difficult to amend. Using the figures cited above it would take only 14 yes votes (with 12 other votes) to amend the constitution. I would lso point out that by the reasoning above (full census of 50 but only 26 active players) it would seem impossible to amend the consitution either way since both methods require at least 26 votes.

Anyone have any better ideas for doing the census?

Anyone have any better ideas for doing the census?

Apparently not, or maybe this thought was buried with the forum move. Let's pick up here where we left off. Thanks!

Alrighty then!

We have two discussions, linked together. Here's another series of proposals to add to the list

First, how many census levels and how should they be determined.

2 census levels - full and active.
Full: 2/3 the highest number of votes in any election poll in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.

Active: Average number of votes in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.

Second, what should be required to amend the Constitution.

Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 super majority of all votes cast, with a minimum vote level of the full census, all fractions to be dropped.

The bar to amend the Constitution is pretty high - you need good participation, and achieving a supermajority is not simple.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by DaveShack


If it weren't so difficult to calculate, I'd propose an actual measurement of how many people are actively contributing, such as "The active census is defined as the number of people who have posted substantial material (i.e. more than a 'me too' type post) in the last 14 days."

Yeah, me too! ;)

Originally posted by Cyc


Yeah, me too! ;)

Ahh, so those that passively participate (vote in polls only) don't count? Even if we could determine the "active" number, I would be strongly against it.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


Ahh, so those that passively participate (vote in polls only) don't count? Even if we could determine the "active" number, I would be strongly against it.

-- Ravensfire

Yeah, me too! ;)

Cyc = AOL user!

;) just couldn't resist that!

-- Ravensfire

I like it, very good idea.

As there hasn't been any activity here for a bit, I'll restate my last idea to bump this.

I. The average number of votes, in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Active Census. 2/3 of the highest number of votes in any single election of the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Full Census. All fractions shall be dropped from the Active and Full Census. Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 supermajority of all votes cast with a quorum level of the Full Census.


Keeping the ball rolling ...

-- Ravensfire

I would like to propose a new compromise. I object very strongly to use of the generally-termed 'full census' (maximum vote count in the last election) for constitutional amendments. Instead, let's just define the census (no modifier) as the average of the vote totals of the current term's contested elections, rounded up.

This keeps one election result which is way out of character from having a huge effect. If a relatively accurate measurement of active participants is used, I'm willing (just barely) to accept requiring a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments.

This stuff really ticks me off reading it after a stressful day at work. I used to participateinthe demo game to relieve stress not add more upon myself!

Listen up people: why do we need more than one census? We could just use one census figure and then use bars of different heights for what is needed to change the constitution and CoL. For example, the census is the average of the votes in the last elections, it takes a majority of the census to vote yes to change the CoL and three fourths to vote yes to change the constitution, or something along these lines.

Can't we make this simple? Let's drop the crap about *active* players. Since no one wants to seriously consider open ballots we will never know how many active players we have anyway.

donsig,

No offense, but you yourself proposed (straight from DG3 in fact) dual census levels. As that has been the gist of nearly every proposal given in this thread, the stress in your post is a bit much.

On to the suggestion...
Using one census will make things easier, and really didn't cross my mind. Too radical for me I guess! :lol: I'm leery of being able to change the Constitution easily though. If we want to amend it, I want there to be overwhelming support for the proposal. Look at DG3, I proposed an Amendment that created a CoC. It was correctly pointed out, during polling, that it belonged in the CoL, not the Con. It took only a few people to kill that proposal. That's how it SHOULD be for the Constitution.


So, exactly what are either of you proposing?

-- Ravesfire

Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

I believe that the election polls are a bad way to determine the census. From my experience (and correct me if it's changed) the election polls get an average of 10 more votes than the normal polls taken in the polls forum. Where those 10 go, no one has yet to figure out, but it may be better to post a census poll (in the polls forum) when elections start. Other than that a 2/3rds majority will work fine.

Originally posted by ravensfire
donsig,

No offense, but you yourself proposed (straight from DG3 in fact) dual census levels. As that has been the gist of nearly every proposal given in this thread, the stress in your post is a bit much.

On to the suggestion...
Using one census will make things easier, and really didn't cross my mind. Too radical for me I guess! :lol: I'm leery of being able to change the Constitution easily though. If we want to amend it, I want there to be overwhelming support for the proposal. Look at DG3, I proposed an Amendment that created a CoC. It was correctly pointed out, during polling, that it belonged in the CoL, not the Con. It took only a few people to kill that proposal. That's how it SHOULD be for the Constitution.


So, exactly what are either of you proposing?

-- Ravesfire

I only proposed it so we could keep the DG3 constitution intact. It is a great framework that evolved over three demogames and I am quite disgusted by the trashing it is taking for DG4. As a historical note I have always campaigned to make the constitution difficult to check. Way back when this subject first came up (DG1) I lobbied for a census that would include all participants. I definded that as the number of votes in our presidential election since that always showed the highest participation. Some didn't like that for varying reasons and the compromise dual census was born.

What are we proposing? I am proposing that we just carry over the DG3 article and go on with life. Once again, it all boils down to making a flipping decision. How difficult do we want it to be to change the constitution? Of course no one here wants to make any decisions...

Originally posted by Cyc
Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

Drop the part about the CoS and I would vote for this one. I am leery of the phrase *a majority of those voting must be achieved*. Could we not define what it takes to change the CoS in either the CoL or CoS?

Originally posted by Cyc
Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

Look good to me. I do agree that we should define how to change the CoL and CoS in those books, not the Con.

-- Ravensfire

New Proposal (scratch the old one):

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change.

Originally posted by Cyc
New Proposal (scratch the old one):

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. All fractions shall be dropped

Changes in red- let's ensure that we are only counting elections where more than one citizen is running. And no, abstain doesn't count until they register! I also want to avoid a possible JR over fractions - we probably will have at least one vote where that will matter.

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

Changes in red- let's ensure that we are only counting elections where more than one citizen is running. And no, abstain doesn't count until they register! I also want to avoid a possible JR over fractions - we probably will have at least one vote where that will matter.

-- Ravensfire

Fine by me. Let's ratify this one.

Typo: "any way" is two words.

As written, it means "pass if yes votes >= floor(census*.66)" without regard to no or abstain votes, is this what you want?

Originally posted by DaveShack
Typo: "any way" is two words.

As written, it means "pass if yes votes >= floor(census*.66)" without regard to no or abstain votes, is this what you want?

Thanks for the correction!

For me, yes, that is what I want. If the census is 26, there must be 17 or more affirmative votes to amend the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, thank you, DS for the correction.

2/3's of the census having voted affirmative is what I meant also. Ravensfire's numbers are correct.

Sorry, my point was what if there are more no votes than yes, but the yes votes exceed 2/3 of census. I agree with the result you are attempting to get, but don't want to leave a nasty loophole.

Correct again, DS. Although it is highly unlikely.

How about this?

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in any way, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

One small thing and I think we have it:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for that term. To alter this Constitution in any way, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

I can post a ratification poll for this tomorrow afternoon.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
One small thing and I think we have it:



I can post a ratification poll for this tomorrow afternoon.

Like the change - nice loophole catch. Looking forward to the poll!

-- Ravensfire

Ratification poll has been posted. Please vote here:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article I (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72321)

As it appears this article has a chance of failing ratification - how should it be fixed. I hope to see all the no votes posting a fix to this one.

-- Ravensfire

Well, the current problems with it is

- Bad Wording
- To many loopholes (IE: the census is only taken once (during elections, yet the population can grow or (more likely) shrink after the elections, making it either to easy or to hard to pass amendments. )

Don't ask me to re-word it, as I've said many times, my english sucks ;).

On the loophole part, I'll suggest once again that it would be more efficient to post a "Census" poll in the polls forum Maybe during elections and half-way through a term (or possibly even more).

If the ratification poll fails as currently worded, I'll get the ball rolling on the next iteration by offering this replacement wording.


I. Census, and Amending the Constitution
1. The census shall be defined as the average number of definitive votes cast
(abstain excluded) in each of the contested elections in the most recent
general election.

2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution shall require each of the following
a. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which states the text of the
proposed new section(s), the text of the section(s) being replaced, and posing
the question in the form of yes / no / abstain
b. A majority of yes votes
c. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to 2/3 the census current at the
start of voting on the amendment, dropping any fraction therein

Even if the poll does not fail we can re-write this article. DaveShack's proposal looks good but I'm not so sure I agree with excluding abstain votes from the census. Citizens who vote in the elections should be counted, shouldn't they?

I believe that's the entire reason for the ABSTAIN vote, donsig. :)

Originally posted by donsig
I'm not so sure I agree with excluding abstain votes from the census.

I'm not hung up on that clause either way. It was only included because I saw a post or two bringing up the idea, and several "me too" type posts.

Originally posted by donsig
Even if the poll does not fail we can re-write this article. DaveShack's proposal looks good but I'm not so sure I agree with excluding abstain votes from the census. Citizens who vote in the elections should be counted, shouldn't they?

Agreed.

Usual comment - add "All fractions shall be dropped."

Strider - I have three concerns about a "poll" thread. First, we would have a moving target for a census - the threshold early in a term would be lower than later in the term. So, when you define what the census is? Second, some people prefer to simply vote in polls, and don't participate in any other way. Third, and most important, we define citizenship as having registered in CFC and in the Citizen thread. A person who has done both is a citizen, regardless of the degree of their participation. The only good measure we will generally have is the election polls.

-- Ravensfire

Looks good to me if we drop the "excluding ABSTAIN votes" as donsig has stated. I believe DS's proposal includes a blurb about dropping fractions, Ravensfire.

Let's get this polled again. Maybe we can get this one passed along with an understanding of what it means. :)

And so it does Cyc, and so it does. And the brain spasm strikes again!

It is a bit later than I would prefer though. I think it makes more sense to put it at the end of I.1. The census is then defined as a whole number. As it is written, we would need to put "drop fractions" in the CoL and CoS amendment process.

-- Ravensfire

I see your point about saving words in the CoL and the CoS. Therefore let's add the wording to I.1, but let's also leave the wording in 2.c as it is.

Having said that, we may also need to put the extra wording in the CoL and CoS anyway. :D Let's make these small adjustments and poll this sucker...

So to be complete, the new wording accounting for comments is:


I. Census, and Amending the Constitution
1. The census shall be defined as the average number of votes cast,
dropping fractions, in each of the contested elections in the most recent
general election.

2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution shall require each of the following
a. A poll which is open for at least 48 hours, which states the text of the
proposed new section(s), the text of the section(s) being replaced, and posing
the question in the form of yes / no / abstain
b. A majority of yes votes
c. A number of yes votes greater than or equal to 2/3 the census current at the
start of voting on the amendment, dropping any fraction therein

Looks good to me, DS!

:goodjob:

-- Ravensfire

A new ratification poll has been posted here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=72731)