DG6: Rules for ratifying the Rules

[DaveShack]

There has been some confusion at the beginning of prior DemoGames regarding how the initial set of rules is to be ratified. Some argue that the constitution of the prior game is still in effect until the new one is ratified, and demand the usually high standards to ratify an amendment, often 66% of the vote, or 50% of the vote with at least 66% of the census voting. Others say that just a majority is required. Also there are differences in what constitutes completion of the initial rule set. One the one hand some say that as soon as the first article is ratified, all the others are amendments. Others might say that it's all new until creation day.

I propose the following process:

1. Set and advertize a date for officially starting the constitutional convention.
2. Some time after that date (3 days for example) open the citizens registry, at a specified date and time. This allows people who care about their place in the registry to stay up and be ready to create their entry.
3. For each ratification poll, the census is the average of the number of entries in the citizens registry at the time the ratification poll is created, and the number of votes in each previously completed ratification poll, rounded up.
4. At least 60% of the census current at the beginning of a ratification poll must vote in order for the results of the poll to be valid
5. An article is ratified if a majority of decisive votes are cast for the yes option (more yes votes than no votes)
6. All ratification polls are of the form "shall this article be ratified?", yes/no/abstain
7. Abstain counts toward the census quorum, but not towards the determination of a majority.
8. Ratification polls must be open for at least 3 days.
9. Completion of the rules is signified by ratification of an article stating that the rules take effect upon its ratification. (yes that is circular logic)

Presuming the rules contain a rule about amending the rules (more circular logic) then ratification of the final article puts the amendment rules into effect.

This proposed rule may be modified as the result of discussion prior to going to a vote, and must be approved by a majority of those voting, prior to opening the citizens registry.

[CivGeneral]

So when is a good time to set the time for the constitutional convention? Since I am interested in tossing in my $0.02 on the new consitution.

[Ashburnham]

I like your ideas, DaveShack. But 3 days sounds a little too restrictive in terms of creating the basis for which our entire DG will be based. I would suggest making the "convention" a week to ensure that everybody gets a chance to participate. Other than that (and I know 3 days was only a suggestion) your plan sounds fine.

[Cyc]

Looks good to me DS, but I'd like to make a few suggestions. When I look at the results of this poll - The End of Game Roll Call, I see we got about 25 regulars voting in the four days after the poll was put up that they would be here for DG6.

1. I would like to make the ratification period for each poll 4 days, not 3. This is especially true if a weekend day is involved.

2. I would like the Census based of these results. So our Census would be an even 25 people throughout the process. We wouldn't have to do any taxing formula to find the current census for the hour the ratification pol was posted.

3.At least 60% of the census current at the beginning of a ratification poll (25) must vote in order for the results of the poll to be valid (your suggestion). Abstain counts toward the census quorum, but not towards the determination of a majority. (So this looks good.)

4. I'm not really sure what you mean by the last sentance. I think I know what you mean, but I better ask. I don't believe the Citizen Registry (CR)opening is going to be announced (it never has been). So I don't think using the CR as a basis for a rule would be appropriate. As far as an Article stating that IT is the last of he Constitutional Convention and everything following should be considered an amendment, that works for me. But what's the when, how, and who of determining which Article that is?

Just some thoughts.

[DaveShack]

Originally Posted by Cyc

Looks good to me DS, but I'd like to make a few suggestions. When I look at the results of this poll - The End of Game Roll Call, I see we got about 25 regulars voting in the four days after the poll was put up that they would be here for DG6.

1. I would like to make the ratification period for each poll 4 days, not 3. This is especially true if a weekend day is involved.

2. I would like the Census based of these results. So our Census would be an even 25 people throughout the process. We wouldn't have to do any taxing formula to find the current census for the hour the ratification pol was posted.

3.At least 60% of the census current at the beginning of a ratification poll (25) must vote in order for the results of the poll to be valid (your suggestion). Abstain counts toward the census quorum, but not towards the determination of a majority. (So this looks good.)

4. I'm not really sure what you mean by the last sentance. I think I know what you mean, but I better ask. I don't believe the Citizen Registry (CR)opening is going to be announced (it never has been). So I don't think using the CR as a basis for a rule would be appropriate. As far as an Article stating that IT is the last of he Constitutional Convention and everything following should be considered an amendment, that works for me. But what's the when, how, and who of determining which Article that is?

Just some thoughts.

I wanted to let newbies have the chance to be counted in the census, hence using the new CR as the basis for the census. I'd be fine with fixing the census at the beginning of ratification of the first article to be polled and dropping the forumla part. 4 days instead of 3 is fine by me, I just picked an arbitrary minimum. We don't have to use the date for the opening of the CR as a rule, just that the CR must be open prior to the 1st ratification poll, otherwise there would be no census.

The last article is the one we all decide is the last one... that gives a concrete ending point. Think of it as ratifying the constitution itself, except that we'd only be voting on this being the final article.

[Gres]

Yup, Yup. All sounds good. My support is hereby endowed upon this process

[Strider]

Looks decent to me, now we gotta make the rules to ratify the rules that will ratify our rules.

[ravensfire]

I'd be very, very cautious with the quorum levels. A fair number of people that sign up don't vote.

Personally, I would set the ratification period for a 4 or 5 day period, then require that an article gets a 66% pass rate. No quorum - you are covering that by having the poll open for a decent period of time.

Hmm, how about a slightly different process. We "approve" each article as we go, 4-5 day poll, 66% approval rating. Once we have the full document ready, we put the entire ruleset up for ratification. We have run into problems where the wording in a previously approved section doesn't agree with a newer section. We allow "approved" sections to be revisited only if a newer section introduces a conflict or a wording change.

-- Ravensfire

[DaveShack]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

I'd be very, very cautious with the quorum levels. A fair number of people that sign up don't vote.

Personally, I would set the ratification period for a 4 or 5 day period, then require that an article gets a 66% pass rate. No quorum - you are covering that by having the poll open for a decent period of time.

I'd much rather have a straight >50% with no quorum, but some people might say that's too low a standard. I really don't want a minority to be able to hold up the process. We had instances in both DG4 and DG5 where a fringe movement could essentially hold things up indefinitely.

I do agree however about being careful with quorums. We don't want an amendment with 95% approval to fail by falling 1 short of quorum. If it weren't so difficult to measure I would say something like:

(> 50% vote yes) AND (%voting yes + % of the census > 99%)

[ravensfire]

Originally Posted by DaveShack

I'd much rather have a straight >50% with no quorum, but some people might say that's too low a standard. I really don't want a minority to be able to hold up the process. We had instances in both DG4 and DG5 where a fringe movement could essentially hold things up indefinitely.

I do agree however about being careful with quorums. We don't want an amendment with 95% approval to fail by falling 1 short of quorum. If it weren't so difficult to measure I would say something like:

(> 50% vote yes) AND (%voting yes + % of the census > 99%)

That's the hard thing with the census, though - we can easily get ourselves in trouble with that if a fair number of people sign up, and don't vote on the ratification. Really, I don't think we need a census of any value for approval/ratification polls at this stage. Rather, we use a decently long time (4-5 days) for the polls. That's long enough for interested parties to vote on the section. Once the poll closes, we look at the approval rate, and go from there.

Your comment about the 50% being too low is accurate though, and I'm inclined to agree with them.

Ratification Process suggestion
How about this - we poll each section for approval, and poll the whole thing for ratification at the end.

Approval polls: Approval polls are run for 4 days. There is no quorum The section is approved if there are more yes votes than no votes. Once a section is approved, it may only be revisited to clean up language or to correct a conflict with another section.

Ratification poll: The Ratification poll is for the final ruleset. It is open for 5 days. There is no quorum. There is no abstain option. The ruleset is considered ratified if 2/3 of the voters approve it.

-- Ravensfire

[Cyc]

Ravensfire's last suggestion in post #10 works for me.

[YNCS]

I agree with Ravensfire about the approval polls. However, I think that a citizen's registry should be opened at the same time as the first approval poll is presented and that be used as the census for the ratification poll. DaveShack's "(> 50% vote yes) AND (%voting yes + % of the census > 99%) would be used only for the ratification poll.

[Black_Hole]

Originally Posted by YNCS

I agree with Ravensfire about the approval polls. However, I think that a citizen's registry should be opened at the same time as the first approval poll is presented and that be used as the census for the ratification poll. DaveShack's "(> 50% vote yes) AND (%voting yes + % of the census > 99%) would be used only for the ratification poll.

then it couldnt be ratified, we probably had 80 ppl register this dg and only 40 at the max ever voting...

[YNCS]

You're probably right. I withdraw my suggestion and endorse Ravensfire's Post #10 suggestion.

[DaveShack]

Before we have any final ratification polls, let's make sure we're totally clear on the criteria for how this game is going to start.


Do we use Ravensfire's criteria? (majority to approve a section, locking out changes; 66% in a final ratification poll to approve the rules in their entirety)

• If yes, what do we do if the date to open nominations comes and we're not done?
  1. Open noms for the things that are done?
  2. Open noms for what we think is going to happen?
  3. Delay the start?
• If no, what alternative do we use?
  1. Same plan but different percentages?
  2. Ratify each article on its own?
  3. Other?