Citizen Discussion : Article 5. Veto Provisions

Recently a presidential veto has been utilized to block a constitutional amendment supported by the council and citizen's under the provisions allowed under the following article of the constitution:

Article 5: Legislative votes are called by any Council member or the President. An affirmative result alters or amends the Constitution. The President can veto a legislative vote, preventing a change in the constitution.

Without reference to the specific amendment that was vetoed (that is a separate discussion) it is apparent that this provision allows for a president to override the actions of the duly elected officials on the implementation of any changes to the most important piece of government legislation. As this seems to fly in the face of the democratic process I bring this issue forward for discussion of whether this veto should be eliminated and the arbitrary exercise of executive privilege curbed.

Note:
It is not the intent of this thread to debate the merits of the specific action that was taken on the recent amendment which was properly executed in accordance with the currently stated provisions, but rahter to determine if those provisions need revising.

Well, I support a far more democratic method of operating. ie: Cabinet votes are non-existent, everything is done by referendum President simply plays the game and nothing else. While the cabinet take there instructions from the will of the people. As such, I'm against the use of a Presidential Veto on ANYTHING.

did someone check wheter we could open public investigations for it? the rule should be changed like with overriding citizen votes by cabinet: automatic public investigation

I support the Presidential veto. The veto is a counter to the Cabinet member power of calling a Council Vote on changing the Constitution. Our original Constitution did not give Council Members this power - we added it with an amendment. When we started the game only the Pres could post Council Votes of any type.

The Presidential veto is an important last line of defense for the Constitution. It does not allow the President to change things, it allows him to prevent a change that he feels is unwaranted or dangerous. This was based on the real world scenario of the United States. The Pres can veto bills. It's generally not a popular thing for him to do but it has very often resulted in superior legislation when the bill returns.

Veto NO

The constitution represents the will of the people, not the will of the president. Veto's in cameral leglislatures in the real world are generally a leftover from archaic institutions. They existed to to permit the powerful to prevent the will of the people which they could not fundamantally ignore from encroaching on their power base.

The president is elected as a leader to give leadership. He is not elected to operate counter to the wishes of the people. In the present circumstance we have a president elected on a plurality of the vote. The candidate may be directly selected by a relatively small proportion of the people. I do not believe that a such a minority representation should be able to block the will of the people on his own whim.


There is a VALID PROCESS for determining change. It includes >>>discussion
>>>polling
>>> cabinet consideration

It is REASONABLE to believe that this process will adequately address the fundamental process of selecting legislation, hence we do NOT need a veto.

Further the veto provides unreasonable power to the president. Such power is inherently subject to abuse. It may be debated that it has been abused already but that is another discussion.

I do not believe that any given official should have the power to subvert changes that have passed the scrutiny of the people and a majority of their representatives. Let us bury Caesar (perhaps Xerxes in this case) and heap no praise upon him ....

While the presidential veto is subject to presidential abuse as pointed out by Rain, it can also work to defend the people's wishes under our current system. It is now possible for a cabinet member to initiate a citizen discussion, post a citizen poll and then a council vote on any constitutional change what-so-ever. If the president cannot veto a measure and the council cannot vote against the measure because it passed a citizen poll then it all revolves around that poll. We have no quorum rule so that poll could pass with a 3-2 vote! The point is, the poll may or may not reflect the will of the people depending on a number of factors such as how it was written, how long and when it was open, etc. Right now the presidential veto is the last defense against this possibility.
I am not opposed to reform of the veto as long as reforms are also made to the constitution and our amendment procedures. It should take more than any citizen poll to change the constitution. It should take more than a plurality of those voting in a poll to pass a constitutional amendment. It should take three-fourths or two-thirds of the number of people voting in a presidential election to pass an amendment. When it takes that kind of effort to change the constitution then the veto of constitutional amendments can go.

That's an interesting idea - basing quorum requirements on the turnout for the Presidential election. That works well as a barometer and it's automatically re-evaluated each term.

donsig: well, a quorum amendment was also but to cabinet aproval at the same time as the turn-chats. so where is the problem?

Originally posted by donsig
While the presidential veto is subject to presidential abuse as pointed out by Rain, it can also work to defend the people's wishes under our current system. It is now possible for a cabinet member to initiate a citizen discussion, post a citizen poll and then a council vote on any constitutional change what-so-ever. If the president cannot veto a measure and the council cannot vote against the measure because it passed a citizen poll then it all revolves around that poll. We have no quorum rule so that poll could pass with a 3-2 vote! The point is, the poll may or may not reflect the will of the people depending on a number of factors such as how it was written, how long and when it was open, etc. Right now the presidential veto is the last defense against this possibility.
I am not opposed to reform of the veto as long as reforms are also made to the constitution and our amendment procedures. It should take more than any citizen poll to change the constitution. It should take more than a plurality of those voting in a poll to pass a constitutional amendment. It should take three-fourths or two-thirds of the number of people voting in a presidential election to pass an amendment. When it takes that kind of effort to change the constitution then the veto of constitutional amendments can go.

Click to expand...

This is a very valid point. Constitutional change should require a 2/3 or 3/4 vote to pass. A quorum is an excellent idea as well and i believe is already in the works. Abolition of the veto in conjunction with these changes will, i agree, serve to protect the people's interests.

The VETO must go!

The quorum was defeated by lack of support. The Council Vote finished with no votes. The Citizen Poll finished with 3 for and 3 against.

which is a shame.

Wow, all this discussion during the turn chat, and when I was sleeping.

What was the quorum? (And did anyone actually see it?)

I think there should be some 2/3 or 3/4 vote, sort of like congress overruling a President's veto.

We don't have a veto override. Would that satisfy most of the people who disagree with the veto?

The problem with the quorum poll and (perhaps polls in general) was it was only open for 3 days over the weekend. With summer approaching and for some people in general they have minimal access to the internet on the weekends. I think polls need to run during weekdays. In conjunction with the problems mentioned i think reducing the frequency of turn chats would also be wise. the frequency of game turns is too fast too allow adequate input from citizens on substantive issues.

Re the Veto override - I disagree with this. It only further complicates the issue and adds additional and unnecessary process. Essentially veto override is the same as allowing the veto since a subsequent discussion, vote etc must still occur.

The VETO must go!

a proposal could (IMHO) be:
thursday: play turn0 chat.
sunday: play small turn0-remains and the real game-chat.
this would lead to:
monday->saturday: for gaming decisions (6 days)
monday->wednesday: for turn0-decisions (3 days)
thursday->saturday: turn0-additions (3 days)

(i left 1 day between vote+chat to adress timezone-problems, so all polls are finished before the coresponding chat starts)

negative point: slows down pace of game
positive point: we could implement a minimum run-time of 3 days for votes to be valid. along with quorum rules this would be perfect.

and another thing to this:
this must be implemented with full voting rights for citizens! no veto! all things must be voted on.

Originally posted by Shaitan
We don't have a veto override. Would that satisfy most of the people who disagree with the veto?

Click to expand...

No, the Veto must go in my opinion.

I believe under the constitution and our governmental system as currently formed require the presence of the Veto

Immortal, I too could enjoy a true democracy game such as you described, but our government is simply not at that point right now. Given that we have formed a representative government, and significantly disabled the executive branch's power, I think this Veto power is a good thing.

In the context of a sweeping change along the lines you advocate, I could support inclusion of the removal of that Veto, but not as a stand alone issue.

I agree with the concept of a Veto override and quorum based upon votes in the President's race. Simple solution actually given how few times this issue will ever come up.

Bill
...in PDX

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I believe under the constitution and our governmental system as currently formed require the presence of the Veto

Immortal, I too could enjoy a true democracy game such as you described, but our government is simply not at that point right now. Given that we have formed a representative government, and significantly disabled the executive branch's power, I think this Veto power is a good thing.

Click to expand...

How does our governmental system require a veto? Our Democracy needs to override the will of the people if it serves the presidents agenda?

The second paragraph is horribly accurate although I am terribly worried about the implied idea of "I too enjoy a true democracy, but...". So our government is not a democracy? I believe the largest error made in this game was not allowing citizens power, held in these two articles:

Article 3: Citizens can't hold polls on rule changes or any matter of state covered by a department.

Artilce 4: If a citizen would like a rule changed or a matter of state changed they may request that the appropriate Council member or Moderator post a poll. If refused, the citizen may start a thread suggesting a poll. When 2 other citizens voice approval of the poll (proposal seconded and carried) the Council member or Moderator must post the poll.

This articles have no place in a democracy, the citizens cannot hold polls on anything covered by a department? This means they can't post a poll on ANYTHING! If they want a matter of state changed they have to request a council member to start it? It may create substantial amounts of clutter, but if everyone were willing to help control there own posts (keeping them inside a particular discussion thread, not starting a new one to get more attention). It could function well.

Significantly disabled the executive branch's power? what do you believe the President should be able to do if you mind me asking?

Back when I ran for governor, I wanted to have the people decide what was built, I would have NO decisions to make myself at all, this is my vision of the democracy game. The "executive Branch" organize ideas into a coherent whole from the people's own thoughts and decisions. This is my idea of the democracy game, not what it is now.

I jumped everywhere this post, but I was typing and watching the World cup at the same time, so forgive the strange tones and shifting ideas.

i totally scond your thoughts, immortal.
and this was mostly the time the game was run before. i posted many polls (i know this was not within the constitution), and with the support of citizenry it was easy to get the president or cabinet to do the requested things.
i would prefer a government with total power of citizenry, which was as i think intended by section J-1. just that the other section amazingly seem to have more power if you read the constitution.
i do definitely not think DOF wanted the game in the direction it tends to go now.

disorganizer: Actually in the formation days of this game, DoF indicated that he wanted more power in the hands of the President and Government Officials, versus the way it had played out in the Civ2 game, where everything was a poll.

Obviously DoF can speak for himself, by you might be surprised to know that he actually wanted the game to go in this direction.

Immortal: No problem on the jumping around, having travelled most of the known world, I am well aware of the passions surrounding the WC. As an American though, knowing that my team is an underdog to Portugal of all teams, I have a hard time getting into it. ;-)

I don't think we are a democracy at all. I think we are a representative government, and those reps are charged with several tasks, and are supposed to have the authority to do them.

If we don't give them the latitude to carryout their jobs, then why would anyone want the headache of being elected? Further, now that we have instituted these citizen awards, there isn't even recognition to be had for doing a good job as an elected official.

I think under the current system, the President is reduced to nothing more than a game turn player, who waits for the department heads to give him detailed move by move instructions. I feel like I am arguing the other side of my usual position, so understand that I am in favor of ending chat turns.

To your question of: "Our Democracy needs to override the will of the people if it serves the presidents agenda?"

The short answer is yes. We elected the President, implied with that is that he will carryout his agenda.

Bill