Proposed Constitutional Article G:


Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. All
elected positions left in absentia for two calender weeks shall be
considered vacent. The deputy will fulfill the remainder of the term
as it is the runner-up in the election. In absence of a runner-up an
appointed citizen shall be the deputy.


This poll has no replacement article as there is no existing law being replaced.

This poll will be open from 96 hours from the time appearing in this post and is considered RATIFIED/DEFEATED after this time.

I voted against this article for the reason that two weeks is far too long, given that it will be almost half of the term. It should be reduced to one week (if no post is made in an official absence thread), or perhaps a challenge system similar to what we had in DG4. If a judiciary member goes absent before a critical ruling, for instance, it could take up to two weeks before a decision is made, seriously slowing down the judicial process. Not that this would have mattered in DG4, but I'm expecting the judiciary to actually work after the first term this game.

Yes, two weeks is a bit long to wait. Sorry I did not contest this in the discussion thread. Also, I am personally against the runner-up in an election becoming a deputy.

If it is defeated would 1 week be preferable to everyone?

Unless that person were to post in the Official Absense Registry, 6 days would be enough to suit me.

I vote yes. It is safer to get this ratified and start the term, and then fix the 2 week problem using an amendment, than it is to go back to the drawing board and risk further controversy on the other provisions of this article. :)

;) I voted yes also.

i agree with dave, pass it and it can be fixed in term 1. That way we won't have to delay the start of the game! usually getting a consitution right is more important :-D But i really want to start heh.

I think 5 days is enough but a week is a suitable period of time when considering the fact that the term is only one month. When you consider 2 weeks to the ratio of about 4 and a half weeks in a month, half of a term to make a decision could be detrimental.

since this looks like its going to be defeated (unless abstain votes are subtracted from the total number of votes) may I request those who voted no write up a counter-proposal?

since this looks like its going to be defeated (unless abstain votes are subtracted from the total number of votes) may I request those who voted no write up a counter-proposal?

Well, according to the census poll we took, this poll would pass by one or two votes.

Census Poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94862)

Yes percentage is higher from last time I checked it. I think there have been 1 or 2 votes since.

For now it works, guys. Right now census stands at 29, but you can rest assured we will get more votes in the General Elections. Luckily we are not basing these ratifications on the upcoming elections. What this will mean is that any future Amendments to the Constitution will be virtually impossible to pass, as the law as written now would almost require unanimous approval to do so.

Therefore, I would like to amend Article I before the General Election is completed. I would like to see a clearer majority of the people for passage(say 60-67%), with a total of the votes equalling 2/3rds the census. While retooling Article I, we can also change the leader removal time from two weeks to one, if the populace wishes.

Here is Article I as it will pass on the 27th:

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.

Here is how I would like to see it altered:

b. A 60-67%(tbd) majority of yes votes.
c. A total number of votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

Let me know if this makes sense, and my apologies for not catching it earlier. If you think it has merit, then please open an Amendment thread in the Citizens Forum, and I will join the discussion later today. :)

NO - 2 weeks is too long, as pointed out above. And since changing an already accepted constitution requires so much effort and time; it's no for me.

Ive written down the necessary changes but for cohesive purposes I dont think we should proceed with a reproposal until the constitutional article is actually approved.
Otherwise we run the risk of an extremely confused amendment before the article situation.

For now it works, guys. Right now census stands at 29, but you can rest assured we will get more votes in the General Elections. Luckily we are not basing these ratifications on the upcoming elections. What this will mean is that any future Amendments to the Constitution will be virtually impossible to pass, as the law as written now would almost require unanimous approval to do so.

Therefore, I would like to amend Article I before the General Election is completed. I would like to see a clearer majority of the people for passage(say 60-67%), with a total of the votes equalling 2/3rds the census. While retooling Article I, we can also change the leader removal time from two weeks to one, if the populace wishes.

Here is Article I as it will pass on the 27th:

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.

Here is how I would like to see it altered:

b. A 60-67%(tbd) majority of yes votes.
c. A total number of votes greater than or equal to
2/3 the census current at the start of voting on
the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

Let me know if this makes sense, and my apologies for not catching it earlier. If you think it has merit, then please open an Amendment thread in the Citizens Forum, and I will join the discussion later today. :)

Yes, I understand. The poll's total quorum must be 2/3 of the active census to be valid. If that mark is reached, then 60 - 67% of the votes cast must be yes votes for the measure to pass. This would greatly reduce the number of voted required to pass a new amendment. Let's say of census was 30. At least 20 people would have to vote in the poll to make it valid. Of those 20 people 12 (60%) to 13 (13.4 equals 67%) would have vote to yes to approve the amendment. So basically this means overall 40 - 45% of the census approved an amendment. That's (obviously) less than half. Is this what we're looking for? By the way, Shaitan tried to use this formula in DG2, I believe. It didn't really work because most of the people were twirling around trying to understand wtf he was talking about. We finally bailed on the idea and went back to a simpler format.

I do agree with Immortal here. Let's hold off.

Yes, I understand. The poll's total quorum must be 2/3 of the active census to be valid. If that mark is reached, then 60 - 67% of the votes cast must be yes votes for the measure to pass. This would greatly reduce the number of voted required to pass a new amendment. Let's say of census was 30. At least 20 people would have to vote in the poll to make it valid. Of those 20 people 12 (60%) to 13 (13.4 equals 67%) would have vote to yes to approve the amendment. So basically this means overall 40 - 45% of the census approved an amendment. That's (obviously) less than half. Is this what we're looking for? By the way, Shaitan tried to use this formula in DG2, I believe. It didn't really work because most of the people were twirling around trying to understand wtf he was talking about. We finally bailed on the idea and went back to a simpler format.

I do agree with Immortal here. Let's hold off.

I would be ok with a majority of the census, not even the suggested 60-67%.

So...this was defeated then?

Yes did not equal 2/3 census.

The only problem with this is that it smacks more of tyranny of the majority than of democracy. If you have to have 2/3 of the electorate vote on an issue, and then have to have at least 60 - 67% of the votes cast be yes votes, it seems to me to set too high of a standard. One or the other of the requirements should be set to 51%, preferably the number of yes votes cast.

DEFEATED

Those who have a counterproposal should make them in the citizens forum.

@Comnenus - I define tyranny of the majority as 51% of the nation calling the shots for the other 49%. By using the 67% measure, only a clear majority can pass our laws. I really don't want to see our Constitution altered by 27 people that think they know better than the other 26.

And Cyc, I see your point and will have to give it some thought. However, we can already see that the elections have garnered a bit more participation than our ratification polls, as has always been the case. I just don't want to be stuck with Article I because its unrealistic census will render the article itself(or any other) unchangeable. Talk about your viscious circles. :)

A new amendment for Article I really needs to be put forth before the end of the elections, or we may not be able to change it.