In order to proceed with ratification I need the census of voting citizens.

If you vote here, you MUST vote in the constitutional ratification polls, and vice-versa. Otherwise census will be skewed and the demogame will be delayed into August due to the lack of 2/3 majority census.

It is imperative that ALL voting citizens cast a census ballot AND a ratification ballot.

This poll will end in 96 hours.

Why didn't you just make it a public poll?

Because I forgot we had that option/ :blush:

:nono: I'm gonna have to spank your avatar for that, Immortal. :banana: :cooool: Have her report to my office. :D

I uh... I dunno quite what to say!

other than:

DANCE!

You need to redo the poll if you want it public.

:nono: I'm gonna have to spank your avatar for that, Immortal. :banana: :cooool: Have her report to my office. :D

Yeah.. uh... bad Immortal!
my office when your done with Cyc...

err, im a citizen and am about half way through voting on all the polls, hopefully i havnt missed one out.

I think I voted in each of them.

Umm, you're not quite right about the effects of not running a census poll. Just take the average of all the ratification polls as the census.

Also I think in the past we have run it so that a majority can ratify the constitution up until the last article is ratified, and then go to a 2/3 majority of the census being required for amendments. BTW it doesn't appear that anything is in danger of not being ratified even if a 2/3 majority were required -- keeping fingers crossed... :D

Simpler this way, and gives some insight into our numbers heading into our first election. ;)

I figured ID rather follow the constitution than tradition DS, I know we've done that in the past, but it might be time for a change, the more people in favour of a ratified article, the better.

Arg! I acciently pressed citizen and then pressed vote. Could a mod add one extra vote to "I have voted in the Ratification polls", please?

I've added 1 to the "I have voted in the Ratification Polls", but we're still 1 down.

Well, I see the first JR we need... :mischief:

Arg! I acciently pressed citizen and then pressed vote. Could a mod add one extra vote to "I have voted in the Ratification polls", please?

I've added 1 to the "I have voted in the Ratification Polls", but we're still 1 down.

eyrei, that's why we needed to make this a public poll. We'd be able to see the bozo who just wants to mess up the count.

I voted for both options.

eyrei, that's why we needed to make this a public poll. We'd be able to see the bozo who just wants to mess up the count.:lol: Don't call me Eyrei ... :lol:
BTW; we can't make it public; as Chieftess pointed out. If you want that; you have to post all polls again and select that option.

Let's see, 43 voters in Presidential, number of citizens: 41.

Um, we've got a problem!

:lol: Don't call me Eyrei ... :lol:
BTW; we can't make it public; as Chieftess pointed out. If you want that; you have to post all polls again and select that option.


Sorry, RM. My mistake. For some reason, I thought I saw eyrei's name at the bottom of the post. :rolleyes: I guess I need to slow down.

But I do realize that you can't switch a poll to public after it's already been created, we would have had to create new ones. I just wanted to stress the point of how much I support public polling.

I support public polling too *kicks self*

I started this poll at midnight when I had a lot on my mind and couldnt sleep, I didnt even consider public poll because it never crossed my mind!

I support public polling for all policy matters, while leaving elections private. At the commencement of Term 1, I will also be touring all Government threads to persuade them to make all official polls public.

Census for articles A B C F G H I J K L M N is declared as 48 and Id like to tell the three people who obviously dont know how to read how disappointed I am with them.

Census for articles A B C F G H I J K L M N is declared as 48 and Id like to tell the three people who obviously dont know how to read how disappointed I am with them.
I wonder who they were...

Furthermore I am thoroughly disgusted by the fact that articles D E O and our preamble are now going to fail to meet quorum due to about 20 people not voting in their ratification poll AT ALL and having about 5 new votes in the last 24 hours.

Couldn't the silence of voters simply construed as indifference? And since those who have voted have voted overwhelmingly to ratify the articles in question, can't they be considered passed?

our constitution is clear in its rule, the article stating as such has been ratified.

Im not in the business of ignoring a rule I dont like.

I can't hold it in much longer...the guilt is killing me.

On retrospect I think that approaching the point of having guilt on internet activites really is a low...

But I voted on the poll before I read the post. I was one of the Three.

I'm sorry :cry:

Immortal is right. The part of the constitution dealing with ratification has passed. Therefore it would be impossible to act outside of those rules simply because we wanted to... :-(

MTSK: all you had to do was ask a mod to add your vote to the ratification poll :( It wouldnt have been anything more than a second thought!

an unfortunate accident.

Couldn't the silence of voters simply construed as indifference? And since those who have voted have voted overwhelmingly to ratify the articles in question, can't they be considered passed?

@Lee, I am already in the process of proposing an amendment to Article I, which deals with the ratification process. I will try to get it going tonight, but may have to wait until tomorrow afternoon. :(

What do you want it to contain? I can write it.

My suggestion: Take out point "c". Point "b" already makes for a majority of YES votes. That should be enough. That way we don't have to deal with voter turnout problems. There is already a mininum of (24 hours review + 96 hours voting) 5 days for any amendment. That should give ample time to anyone who wants to cast a vote to do so.

Also, since we're changing it, the last point (d) should be made the first one, just so everything falls in chronological order: proposal, vote, results.

Thanks, Morty. :D It's 5 hours until the rooster crows again, and I am starting to see double. Which means I am seeing two Natalie's right now, so's not all bad. :D

This is what I submitted in the Article I ratification thread. You can post this for starters, and open discussion. Personally, I am more concerned about a clear majoity(b) than I am a minimum census requirement(c), but would like to include both.

Article 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 96 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 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.
d. The Amendment poll must first be posted as a
"proposed poll" in the discussion thread created
for the Amendment. The proposed poll must exist
in the discussion thread for 24 hours prior to the
Amendment poll being created. This gives adequate
time for review and changes.

I find the proposal acceptable.

How about this:

Article P The Game Opening Constitution

1. The Constitution that officially opens the Demogame is subject to
ratification quorum of 51% of the active census. This status of
reduced quorum will remain in effect for the first week of the
Demogame's first Term. This Article will help alleviate any quorum
problems caused by one-time voters or transient citizens.

If we get this passed now, our problems could be solved.

That still does not solve the problem of 2/3 majority YES, redundant in the article in question with the "majority of citizen" point.

yes, but it gives us time to fix the problems. ;)

Except for the fact that we won't ratify it in time, I love it! :D

But will we have the votes to remove it? I say we just work on Article I.

How about this?

67% majority
YES votes must equal 50% of active census.

This way we can get away with less votes for the slamdunk proposals. I iwll have to run the numbers, but I think this plan would require a few more YES votes.

EDIT: To be continued..............TOMORROW! :D :sleep:

You mean that 67% of the census must vote and at least half of the votes must be a YES vote. Correct?

No, I mean that Constitution amendments must be approved by a 67% majority.

Say the census is 48. The number of YES votes required would be 24(50% of census), yet it could have no more than 12 dissenting votes to ensure passage by a 67% majority.

I am quite adamant about requiring a clear majority to amend the Constitution. A simple 51% majority simply will not do.

---

Now let's go back to my proposal from post #32.

If we decide to require 2/3 of the census to participate, and still demand a 67% majority from there, here are the numbers based on a census of 48.

Number of total votes required for passage: 32

The smallest number of YES votes required to meet this minimum is 22 votes. A 22-10 decision would be just over 67%, while a 21-11 result would fail by the smallest of margins.

How about a 21 - 10 - 1 result?

Or a 22 - 11 - 1 result?

Or 22 - 10 - 3 result?

Orginially posted by Donovan Zoi
Now let's go back to my proposal from post #32.

If we decide to require 2/3 of the census to participate, and still demand a 67% majority from there, here are the numbers based on a census of 48.

Number of total votes required for passage: 32

The smallest number of YES votes required to meet this minimum is 22 votes. A 22-10 decision would be just over 67%, while a 21-11 result would fail by the smallest of margins.

The only problem I see with this system is voter turnout. If only 31 people vote, the amendment cannot pass, even if all 31 people voted YES.

This is why I want a system with no minimum turnout requirement. If only 30 people voted, 20 YES votes should get the amendment passed, regardless of how many people there are in census.

does everyone realise that this census is going to decrease over the demogame? theres a chance it wont but a bigger chance it will.

I think this is the same mistake we made back in DG2 - assuming that the census for term 1 = the census the entire game. It should be the max number of votes during the most recent election (or 1/2 of it).

THE CONSTITUTION:

Article 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.

Thus, the census will change after the conclusion of the Term 1 elections correct?

How about a 21 - 10 - 1 result?

Or a 22 - 11 - 1 result?

Or 22 - 10 - 3 result?

Sorry for the delay in responding, Cyc.

I would like to see Abstain used only as a means of meeting the required census, but it should not count against the 67% majority. Otherwise it may as well be a NO vote. ;)

So, all three of your examples would pass using the [2/3s of 2/3s] method. However, in the [YES votes = 1/2 the Census] proposal, all three of these measures would fail.(Census of 48; YES votes must equal 24).

IRL, abstain is usually effectively a no vote

It's madness that a 31-1-1 vote defeats an article. Drop the census not to the maximum turnout, nor to the average turnout, just base it on the turnout at the ratification.

I know it's not really neat, but we have to stay realistic. In the DG a lot of people vote during elections, and you'll hear from them again at the next election. They are blocking that way the constitutional process. As we can't even find enough votes during elections, we'll never meet the quorum in the middle of a term.

DROP THE CENSUS, DROP THE CENSUS!

Since there are only 48 citizens in this census, but there are as many as 60 people who have voted in some of the polls, what exactly determines the census for this first round of voting? I am going to be putting up two polls tonight and would like to know for certain how many votes are required for passage. TIA

It's madness that a 31-1-1 vote defeats an article. Drop the census not to the maximum turnout, nor to the average turnout, just base it on the turnout at the ratification.

I know it's not really neat, but we have to stay realistic. In the DG a lot of people vote during elections, and you'll hear from them again at the next election. They are blocking that way the constitutional process. As we can't even find enough votes during elections, we'll never meet the quorum in the middle of a term.

DROP THE CENSUS, DROP THE CENSUS!
i agree, just because a few citizens cant(for whatever reason) vote in the poll, that doesnt mean perfectly fine articles should be thrown out

Sorry for the delay in responding, Cyc.

I would like to see Abstain used only as a means of meeting the required census, but it should not count against the 67% majority. Otherwise it may as well be a NO vote. ;)

So, all three of your examples would pass using the [2/3s of 2/3s] method. However, in the [YES votes = 1/2 the Census] proposal, all three of these measures would fail.(Census of 48; YES votes must equal 24).
it is, because the way its set up, a certain amount of yes votes are required out of a certain amount of citizens... if you want to abstain its actuallly better to not vote, but that is still sorta a no vote the way it is set up