Amendment to Article I of the Constitution

Should the amendment to Article H be ratified?

  • Total voters
    50
  • Poll closed .
Donovan Zoi

Donovan Zoi

The Return
Joined
Oct 22, 2002
Messages
4,960
Location
Chicago
This poll was created to amend Article I of the Constitution. If this Legislation is approved, it will replace the current Article I. This law seeks to lower the number of YES votes needed for passage of an amendment, while still requiring a clear majority of participants to do so.

Article I - Current

Code: 
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 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.
                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.

Article I - Amended Changes in boldface

Code: 
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.  [b]A 67% majority of Yes votes over No votes, Abstain 
                     notwithstanding.[/b]
                c.  [b]A total number of votes[/b] 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.

Please Vote one of the following options ~
YES - You want to amend this Article of the Constitution
NO - You reject this Article
ABSTAIN - You have no opinion

This poll will remain open for 4 days
Relevant discussion can be found here.
 
Thanks for your hard work on this amendment, DZ, and to all others who have made the effort to get this Article amended. We can only hope enough interested citizens are willing to cast their votes.
 
Please ignore the glaring error in the Poll question. It should obviously ask whether Article I should be ratified.

And I am of the opinion that it should be. At this time, we have three laws up for vote that are winning by considerable margins, yet all three still run the risk of falling short of the large amount of YES votes currently required by Article I. Let's change this so that the peoples' voice can not only be heard, but carried out as well.

If you only vote in one amendment poll, let this be the one.
 
Comnenus said:
Thanks for your hard work on this amendment, DZ, and to all others who have made the effort to get this Article amended. We can only hope enough interested citizens are willing to cast their votes.
Click to expand...

The pleasure is all mine. :) You too deserve a round of applause for your dedication to our ruleset. Now let's lobby for this bill! :rockon:
 
What about the quorum? Also, with a high census count (55 average?), what if participation drops off mid-game, as it often does? I think 1/2 the average might be better, or atleast the number to meet.
 
Chieftess said:
What about the quorum? Also, with a high census count (55 average?), what if participation drops off mid-game, as it often does? I think 1/2 the average might be better, or atleast the number to meet.
Click to expand...

Well, CT, if you had read any of the discussion, you would know that DZ's proposeal can drop the approval rate to a possible 45%. Too bad...
 
Sorry, but I must disagree with this proposal.

The decision to not consider Abstain votes in determining the majority ignores the decision of those citizens. If you're going to count the vote for the quorum level, you can't just turn around and ignore it in the next step.

This is the Constitution we're talking about here people. This is supposed to be hard to change, proposals should be able to overcome both opposition AND apathy. We're getting dangerously close to a bloated Constitution again - this isn't going to help.

Problems I see with the current proposal:
1. Ignores citizen who vote abstain
2. Introduces a new strategy for the opposition - the null vote. In times of a high census, it is better for those opposed to a proposal to NOT VOTE, and create a vote total below the quorum.

Solution:
1. Eliminate the Abstain option. You are either for, or against the proposal. This is the Constitution we're talking about, not a city placement. Time for another tired, useless tradition to go.

2. Drop the minimum quorum to 50% of the most recent active census. If half the people speak, that should be considered the Voice of the People, allowing the Will to be determined.

3. Proposal must have 66% of those vote supporting it to pass.

Results - those opposed to the prpposal are, in fact, better off voting Nay because the quorum is moderately low. This eliminates the null vote strategy. The 2/3 requirement still puts the level of acceptance high, requiring any proposal to have significant support to pass.

-- Ravensfire
 
ravensfire said:
The decision to not consider Abstain votes in determining the majority ignores the decision of those citizens. If you're going to count the vote for the quorum level, you can't just turn around and ignore it in the next step.
Click to expand...

I am sorry that you feel that way, but of course, we are each entitled to our opinions. Perhaps you see abstentions differently than the framers of this Amendment. To abstain is not to give an opinion. It can not be construed as either a yes or a no. Therefore, in counting the total vote it is counted, but in counting a show of support or no support, it must be discounted.

Of course, you are always welcome to write an amendment yourself.
 
Ravensfire, where the heck were you 3-4 days ago? It's a little late now for constructive criticism. Now you'll have to wait until the next amendment is done.

BTW, isn't this what you accused other people of doing in the last Demogame? Waiting until the amendment was posted before contributing?
 
What would be funny is if this amendment failed by one vote short of a majority :lol: :lol: Why you ask? Because not everyone voted.

I voted yes, and you should too!
 
Cyc said:
Ravensfire, where the heck were you 3-4 days ago? It's a little late now for constructive criticism. Now you'll have to wait until the next amendment is done.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. I can work to have this defeated given the problems I perceive with this proposal.
BTW, isn't this what you accused other people of doing in the last Demogame? Waiting until the amendment was posted before contributing?
Click to expand...
Why yes, yes it is.

-- Ravensfire
 
first of all i wish to point out that voting against an ammendment because you feel it is flawed even if you did not participate in the discussion is not wrong. We dont all have time to participate in these discussions.

Furthermore I actually agree with ravensfire, he makes some very good points. I'm for sending it back to discussion to be changed. To those who say it can simply be ammended, Can YOU guarantee that? It is better to have this voted down so that it can be fixxed than it would be to have it voted in and then not fixxed or even to risk not having it fixxed. We do not need another flawed governmentmental policy.
 
Check the language of the original. It is what is flawed. It calls for a majority of yes votes and 2/3 of the votes must be yes votes.

The amendment would make that 2/3 of the voters with an opinion need to vote yes, and at least 2/3 of the current census need to cast votes. A much better solution, IMO.
 
If this gets passed, the amendments should be passed along quickly and will see less instances of failed proposals :).
 
Way to go, RF and zorven. Where were you two a few days ago?

And did either of you read the introduction to the amendment? Right now laws are already nearly impossible to pass due to the requirement of YES votes to equal 2/3rds of the active census(currently 38).

Let me put it plainly to you since apparently much gets lost in the small text:

This amendment improves on the existing law and is necessary during this Constitutional crisis, where current articles flirt with failure despite receiving almost 90% of the votes.

That alone should be enough to support this amendment. I would have been more than glad to hear your opinions for the 10-odd days that the discussion thread was open, but now that this amendment is subject to the constraints of the very law it is trying to replace, I feel that this display of Monday night quarterbacking is woefully misplaced.

I would be delighted to defend the verbage of this amendment once it is passed here. But please, for the good of Japanatica, do not undermine this effort to realistically adopt original articles that haven't even been ratified yet.

Please stop by again soon............
 
Well Im sorry you poor individuals breaking your back over trying to get these constituional articles can understand how I felt when 3 articles failed by 1 vote. DZ, Commenus, Cyc.

And guess what? 2 of those 3 aborted articles are up for JR, and they are simple to deal with.
 
Sorry, DZ. I will agree that my timing is poor.

However, I stand by both my statement AND my vote. I'm distressed that you would call someone out BECAUSE of their vote. That's a Bad Thing. If this public poll thing is going to start more people doing that, and using public pressure to get people to vote their way, people will stop voting how they feel, and vote how to stop public pressure. To be blunt, that tactic sucks, DZ. I'm disappointed you would pull it.

As I said in my comments - I don't like the proposal. It IS better than the current law, but I don't like it, and will not support replacing a bad law with another bad law.

I urge ALL citizens to vote NO to this proposal. Replacing a flawed concept, rushed through, with another flawed concept is NOT good law. Reject this, and bring it back to the discussion thread so we can create a GOOD law.

-- Ravensfire
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-15) Pilfer Religious Relics Mission Proposals
Replies
1
Views
666
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-86) God of the Sun Tweak Proposals
Replies
2
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-35) Merchant Specialist Buff Proposals
Replies
1
Views
739
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-76 & 7-77) Mayan Kuna & Atlatlist Proposals
Replies
5
Views
1K
Recursive
Recursive
Recursive
  • Locked
  • Poll Poll
[Vote] (7-40) Progress Rework Proposals
Replies
9
Views
2K
Recursive
Recursive
Back
Top Bottom