Constitutional Amendment: Article O and Article P

Do you accept the amendments?

  • Yes, I accept the amendments.

    Votes: 3 30.0%
  • No, I do not accept the amendments.

    Votes: 6 60.0%
  • I abstain.

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Total voters
    10
  • Poll closed .

Cheetah

Deity
Joined
Dec 20, 2002
Messages
8,010
Location
the relative oasis of CFC
After the outbreak of our current war with C3B, it has been discussed a lot about what rules we have and should have for declearing war.

classical_hero started a thread about a constitutional amendment. It has been discussed and the time has come for a vote.

Changing of Article O:
Changes are in bold, and lined-through words will be removed.
Code:
[B]Article O[/B]
Treaties and agreements with foreign nations may be ratified by
Fanatica with a poll open for [B][S]minimum[/S] 48 hours or once the number of
voters is equal to the Active assembly, as decribed in Article K §1,
whichever comes first.[/B]  A simple majority of voters is required to ratify
the treaty or agreement.
§1.  In matters of extremely urgent national security (ex. impending
     invasion), the Administrative Council may chose to sign the treaty,
     making it binding for all of Fanatikou. However, the Chief Jutice
     would have to verify that is was indeed a matter of extremely
     urgent national security.

Addition of an entirely new Article P:
Code:
[B]Article P[/B]
Declaration of War.
War can only be declared by Fanatica with a poll open for minimum
48 hours or once the number of voters is equal to the Active assembly,
as decribed in Article K §1, whichever comes first.
 
Yes .
 
It's offensive not being listened to.

Should be a clear majority of the active assembly, not the full active assembly, (one or two people could be on leave)
 
I agree with Hygro...why should the vote not be considered binding once a clear majority of the active assembly has voted either yes or no? These ammendments would require that the poll be open for 48 hours if just one person wanted to withhold a vote. That seems a little excessive.
 
Have to agree with Hygro. If I need to work and am not able to get online, then I wouldn't want you all to wait to declare war so that I can add my vote to a 16-0 yes/no war poll.
 
I would say that we should vote for the poll as it stands and if you feel that it should be tweaked a little, such and the legality of the poll part, then it could be changed. I think it is better having some sort of change so that the things that happened in the past, remain in the past. Also, why did you not say anything about this before the poll was set up?
 
No, it is not right to not allow both sides a chance for argument. Plus, you can be fooled by doing this quickly. Both sides need to be heard, so that the voter is well informed.
 
Emp.Napoleon said:
No, it is not right to not allow both sides a chance for argument. Plus, you can be fooled by doing this quickly. Both sides need to be heard, so that the voter is well informed.
That is such a poor arguement against this amendment. Often when important decisions are made, there has been ample enough time for both sides to give their side. With the issue of the war that caused this problem, we had enough time to discuss the ins and outs of the possible military action that the Declaration poll was just the end of the long discussion. Polls will always occur when we have already have discussion. I think it is good to have some sort of time frame of 1 or two days to end polls, because not everyone is living in the same timezone, after all, I am living on the West Coast of Australia and that is for most people here, over 1/2 a days time difference.
 
Top Bottom