Citizen polling restrictions - Discussion

Shaitan · Jul 1, 2002

This is a sidebar discussion in the ongoing development of our new Code of Laws. This thread will determine what, if any, citizen polling restrictions become a part of the Code.

Here is the section as it currently reads:

Code:

Point 3   Right to Free Speech
          a Citizens may post their comments in forum threads
             wherever appropriate.
          b Citizens may post their comments in chats wherever 
             appropriate.
          c Citizens may create discussion threads on any topic.
          d Citizens may create polls on any subject not 
             specifically enumerated as the responsibility of an 
             elected official. Valid subjects include but are not limited to:
            (1) Opinion polls;
            (2) Procedure polls;
            (3) Proposals to adopt changes and additions to the 
                 Constitution and Code of Laws.

The item in question is "d". The intent of this is to reserve for the Leaders the right to poll on the items required to do their jobs, avoid confusion and clutter from duplicate and contrary polls, and to avoid further confusion over what is a binding poll. The counter position is that citizens should be free to post any poll that they wish to.

Discuss!

eyrei · Jul 1, 2002

I think it would be best if citizens refrain from posting polls that are specific in nature and should be posted by a department head. If a citizen requests that a department head post a poll, and the request is seconded, that leader must post the poll or face impeachment. I imagine most leaders will post a poll on the request of any one citizen anyway, so I do not see this as a big problem.

Cyc · Jul 1, 2002

"d" is not worded very well for a law. It seems to be more of an Article. You should try rewording it again to be more specific. It calls for too much interpretation.

Bill_in_PDX · Jul 1, 2002

I think the intent of section D is correct. That being we would have potential chaos and conflict on our hands with polls produced by citizens.

However, our constitutional requirement that the elected officials act on the will of the people may not be protected enough by law itself. Therefore, Eyrei's solution is appropriate.

In the event that two conflicting polls are raised and seconded, then further passed in conflict, the matter could either be referred to the Justice department, or perhaps a cabinet vote. This would be to protect the cabinet member from violating the constitution directly through no choice of their own.

Bill
...in PDX...got happiness?

disorganizer · Jul 1, 2002

did we have any problems with this in the past that we could not handle without a coresponding procedure?

donsig · Jul 1, 2002

I guess I'm on my own on this one. I think citizens should be able to post any poll they want especially if we're putting the free speech clause in the constitution.

I don't foresee a problem with conflicting polls. First of all, there is nothing to guarantee we won't end up with conflicting polls when uder the proposed law. Since the possibility exists, we should decide how to deal conflicting polls anyway. In the second place, polls posted by government officials can always be designated as official government polls which could distinguish them from polls posted by us ordinary citizens. Citizen polls would be non-binding as opposed to official government polls which would be binding (assuming they meet whatever other criteria are necessary). If a citizen wanted his or her poll to be an official government poll then he or she would have to get it seconded and posted by a governemnt official. This would also allow government officials to post non-binding polls since they are citizens.
In the third place, having too many polls shouldn't be a problem. We could decide that only official government polls can be sticky and things like that.

Cyc · Jul 1, 2002

Very well said, Donsig. Maybe you could help Shaitan reword "d".

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

A couple problems I see.

First - From the Civ II demogame we know that it does get confusing enough that they enacted this rule there.

Second - If a citizen posts a poll and then a leader posts an official poll, there will be lower participation in one or both polls (most likely the second one posted). We will be working with quorum requirements so "competing" polls will make it more difficult for the official poll to become valid.

Third - We're already specifying that leader's must work towards the will of the people, we're making standards so the discussion/polling process gets more organized and fair, we're specifying that leaders must post a poll when people ask for it. Can't we trust the leaders to manage the polls relating directly to their sphere of responsibility? It is certainly no more difficult for a citizen to post a request for a poll than it is to post a poll itself. The only handicap is speed as the requested poll would be up later than the citizen posted one. But is that critical? It wasn't so long ago that there was a major furor over polls being posted too quickly, without discussion.

disorganizer · Jul 2, 2002

i agree with donsig (i really do! a wonder!).

but we could also make another clause in there: if a official poll is to be posted for a topic already covered by an inofficial poll, the leader can decide to
a) rename the poll to an official one so all casted votes will still be in effect. a kind of promotion of an inofficial poll to an official one, which will make it binding. rename can be done by the mods
b) close the inofficial poll and repost the topic as official poll.

i dont know which idea (a or b) is better.

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

Messing with an existing poll is always bad news. Personally, I'd prefer if we stopped allowing people to change their votes as that's just totally against the polling process.

On messing with a poll - Any change to an existing poll will tend to invalidate votes already cast on that poll. The smaller the change, the less votes are invalidated. Contrariwise, the larger the change, the more votes are invalidated. Something like a spelling correction might have no effect. Changing a poll from an informal one to an officially binding one...who knows?

Nobody except a mod should ever have the authority to arbitrarily change or close somebody else's poll.

disorganizer · Jul 2, 2002

ok. so then if an official poll is there, the mods should post the link in the unofficial one and close the unofficial poll-thread.

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

It's still arbitrary. I can silence your poll by posting my own. Doesn't matter how similar or disparate they really are - I just instruct the mod to shut yours down because I'm putting mine up. If we went this route then I wouldn't be comfortable with anything stronger than the leader requesting that the citizen shut down the unofficial poll in favor of the official one.

disorganizer · Jul 2, 2002

i see you point there in misuse of power...
but the only alternative way would be to let a leader "officialize" an unofficial poll. this must be reflected in the poll-name though, so that ppl who have no voted in the unoffical one notice it is now official (and of course the pol-index must reflect this as a new post, not a changed one).

we will not be able to let citizen not post any polls, as this will happen anyways. and nothing will be more of a bad image for the government if a poll casted by a citizen will be invalidated. it is there, and even if it is only informational the leader have to follow it. and even if its against the constitution, it states the will of citizenry for the government to follow.

donsig · Jul 2, 2002

I agree with Shaitan about changing votes and existing polls - neither should be done.

I can also see his point about the second poll on the same subject getting a lower turn-out. I just wonder if there will be many times when we will have this situation. If a citizen posts a poll for a specific action then the leader with jurisdiction over that action can either do the action called for in the poll or not. While the leader is not bound by the citizen poll the leader does not necessarily need a valid and binding official government poll to perform an action.

disorganizer · Jul 2, 2002

right. thats why i asked how ofter this situation occured till now. i cant remember any case when it did. all the times, the leaders resprected informational polls, as they want to be reelected and not impeached ;-)

EDIT:
of course we should state somewhere that inofficial polls are not binding and therefor an impeachment footing on these types of polls would propably not come through (though, if the informational poll made a clear statement, lets say 80% for a option with otherwise valid poll, and this poll is disregarded, then the article stating that the leaders should act according to the will of citizenry could be triggered).

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

Another reason for the leader to be the one posting polls dealing with his sphere of responsibility. The leader is supposed to be the expert, most informed, coordinator, etc for his duties. The leader should be the central depository for polls that affect that department's actions.

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

of course we should state somewhere that inofficial polls are not binding and therefor an impeachment footing on these types of polls would propably not come through (though, if the informational poll made a clear statement, lets say 80% for a option with otherwise valid poll, and this poll is disregarded, then the article stating that the leaders should act according to the will of citizenry could be triggered).

We do state, in very clear terms, that a poll must be valid (meets poll and quorum requirements) and binding (posted by the appropriate leader) to be used for justification for actions and plans. Informational polls can only be officially used to guide discussion or to satisfy curiosity. Nobody can be impeached or even reprimanded for ignoring informational polls. Similarly, informational polls cannot be used to validate actions.

Eklektikos · Jul 2, 2002

If the idea is to make only polls initiated by government depts binding then I'm going to suggest that we make a single department responsible for the actual posting of these polls - either the Judiciary or a new two person "polling institute". Departments would submit their proposed polls in a dedicated thread, a pollster/member of the judiciary then vets the poll against the constitution & polling standards and either rejects it with recommendations or accepts it and posts it. This should put a stop to all controversy about polling too early/dubiously worded polls, etc. Also it would clear up confusion as to which polls are binding, since only polls posted by this department would carry legal weight.

Shaitan · Jul 2, 2002

To get a feel for the actual impact of this rule I have launched an informational poll asking if anybody has actually been prevented from posting a poll due to the citizen poll restriction rules. LINK

disorganizer · Jul 2, 2002

eklektikos:
it would recommend a 24h availability of this department to not hinder or slow down polling. as we have a minimum runtime of 28hours with a lead of 24h discussion, even a 24h delay could reder a poll unusable because of being obsolete.
for example: sunday, an issue arrises on the chat. the leader posts a poll on monday, so the poll normally would end on tuesday night, being ready for the chat. even with a discussion in front (short one), this would be enough time.
with a request before this and maybe a delay of only 12h, this result would not be there till wednesday, so the chat would be canceled maybe.

even on the wednesday chat this situation could reder the poll invalid, as then we would run into weekend for voting and get a low participation.

Citizen polling restrictions - Discussion

der Besucher

Deity

Looking for the door...

Grumpy Submariner

Deity

Low level intermediary

Looking for the door...

der Besucher

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

der Besucher

Deity

Low level intermediary

Deity

der Besucher

der Besucher

Eponymous

der Besucher

Deity

Similar threads