Amending the Code of Laws (Binding) #2

[Alphawolf]

I've been trying to post this for a couple of hours, and just now have I been able to get to the forums.

As DaveShack pointed out, nothing can require more than 60% approval under the constitution that is undergoing ratification now, and since it is 25 to 2 with one misclick making it 26 to 1, It looks as though it will be passed, DaveShack. I had read the Constitution but apparently forgot it so I put poll options that were not legal in the last poll. Therefore I am putting up this poll for the Yea percentage necessary to amend the Code of Laws. The options are:
50.01%
55%
60%
Abstain

The 50.01% is so that a majority is required; a 50-50 split is not a majority for either choice.

Also the other is correct on # of polls and how long the poll should be open so please vote: Amending the Code of Laws (Binding)

Edit: Also please sould off if you think DaveShack should be banned from ever using the word 'Groupies' again.


-the Wolf

[ravensfire]

Doh - should be 50.01% - I'm brain dead.

-- Ravensfire

[Alphawolf]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

Doh - should be 50.01% - I'm brain dead.

-- Ravensfire

So we have your permission to get a moderator to change it?

-the Wolf

[DaveShack]

Actually, since a majority got the most votes in the first poll we could just leave it at that.

[Stilgar08]

I don't know why but I don't really care! Nevertheless I voted 60% since it seems right to me!

[Alphawolf]

Originally Posted by DaveShack

Actually, since a majority got the most votes in the first poll we could just leave it at that.

Yes, but there were invalid options, and citizens shouldn't loose their vote just because I can't put up a poll with correct options.

-the Wolf

[Blkbird]

The proposed Constitution has not yet been accepted. Why shall we assume the 60% clause will prevail? To me this looks like a "subliminal campaign" for the proposed Constitution: By acting so as if it were already binding, the public opinion is being manipulated (intentionally or not) in favour of the proposed Consitution. It's like calling a presidential candidate "Mr. President" before the election (yes it's common practice in the US, but it's not clean politics).

Therefore I strongly object this practice.

[DaveShack]

At the point in time this was repolled, the Constitution ratification vote sat at something like 22-1 in favor of ratification. There would have had to be 21 no votes without any additional yes votes in order for the ratification to fail.

Had the Constitution not been ratified then we probably would have started over from scratch, in which case there would have been plenty of time to repoll this till the cows come home. With it being ratified, we're days ahead on knowing what to put into the CoL proposal.

I'm on record as saying that a simple majority already won the first "amending the CoL" vote and that it shouldn't be revoted. This revote is actually beneficial to anyone who doesn't want a simple majority because it concentrates the votes for higher numbers into fewer options, making it more likely that the higher numbers will win.

I am universally, adamantly against any practice which allows a minority to control the majority. Requiring anything more than a majority to amend the Code of Laws does exactly that -- it gives the minority the ability to prevent necessary changes to the rules.

In one previoius DG, we had a process for Constitutional amendments which resulted in a very high number (87% IIRC) voting in favor of an amendment (a very necessary one I might add), but the amendment still failed because one voter noticed that it was possible to not vote at all, and thereby make the number of votes fall one short of a quorum. We're not using quorums yet this DG, and I sincerely hope we never use them again.

In short, vote for 50.01%, a simple majority. Don't let a potentially small number of people hold the game hostage.

[ravensfire]

Originally Posted by DaveShack

In one previoius DG, we had a process for Constitutional amendments which resulted in a very high number (87% IIRC) voting in favor of an amendment (a very necessary one I might add), but the amendment still failed because one voter noticed that it was possible to not vote at all, and thereby make the number of votes fall one short of a quorum. We're not using quorums yet this DG, and I sincerely hope we never use them again.

And that was such a fun tactic too!

I took the opportunity to review that entire fiasco - my goodness that was an ugly game. CC's, arguements, "Abstain, Public Poll", and some of the most verbose laws I've ever seen. And to correct DS, the strategy I used several times was the Abstain vote.

And some of the worst. Some background - in this game, we started WELL prior to a completed ruleset. The original Amendment process set the requirements to amend the constitution to include, among other things, "A number of yes votes greater than or equal to 2/3 of the quorum". During the poll on this, several people correctly pointed out the difficulty this would require.

Quite bluntly, the people got exactly what they deserved - the law they passed. It made it trivial for an extraordinarly small group to halt change. I further objected to the amendment to correct that horrible law because THAT amendment was flawed itself. THAT amendment intruduced the Null vote. I warned of this during the polling on it, and the proposal still passed. Again, the people got exactly the law they voted for. One should NEVER be castigated for using a valid, legal strategy to defeat a proposal they are against.

I hope DS will be so kind as to refresh his memory as to my voting record on the amendment.

To the point at hand, and my final lecture on this.

There are two main bodies of rules we have - the Constitution, and the Code of Laws. The Constitution is our framework, our basis of Government. It contains the core ideas and principles upon which we build our government and society. As such, it MUST be a work that is stable, consistent and still capable of change. This is done by setting a threshold for amendments that requires they have extremely strong support. After all, we're changing something at the core of the game - that should never be done lightly.

The Code of Laws provides the details of who we are. As such, it should be easier to change, providing the flexibility needed to adjust as needed.

The Constitution we have ratified does not have those protections. It is not a stable basis. It is subject to the whim of a small majority and a small turn-out. Several of the new political parties could easily assert their will, and use a Constitutional amendment to force a change in Government style with just a slight majority of votes. This would be most easily done during the holidays when the turnout is generally low.

I will not act in such a manner, nor work to change the law to a manner that I find acceptable. I believe that the will of the people, regardless of how misguided and mistaken I feel it is, should be respected.

The Code of Laws, however, is just fine with a >50% pass rate.

-- Ravensfire

[DaveShack]

Originally Posted by ravensfire

And to correct DS, the strategy I used several times was the Abstain vote.

I hope DS will be so kind as to refresh his memory as to my voting record on the amendment.

Actually, I thought it was a different amendment, and someone else who was using not voting as a tactic. I'm pretty sure there was at least one vote where not voting did result in an amendment not passing though.

It might have been better not to mention how to use low turnout as a weapon, though enough people may be able to figure that out on their own that it probably doesn't matter if its discussed. Hopefully since most of the time between now and the start of the game will have some kind of election activity going on, there won't be any exposure to low turnout.

I'd be quite happy to see a debate and vote on the Constitutional Amendment threshold. I'm glad to see that simple majority has regained its slight advantage in this poll, though still worried that we'll end up with both layers hard to change.