Almightyjosh
Governor in Waiting
Thats an interesting idea, but WAY WAY WAY too dificult.
Citizen Poll - Change in Article I of the Constitution - The Census
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Quoting Shaitan:
Actually, there is a flip side which seems to be ignored. There are times (Term 4) when the Presidential election has very low turnout. A runaway election just doesn't attract the participation that a contest between 2 or more popular candidates does. In that case, the "census" was very low. Averaging corrects both high and low attendance in the single election.
And that, Mr. Donsig, is one of the things you missed...
Actually, there is a flip side which seems to be ignored. There are times (Term 4) when the Presidential election has very low turnout. A runaway election just doesn't attract the participation that a contest between 2 or more popular candidates does. In that case, the "census" was very low. Averaging corrects both high and low attendance in the single election.
And that, Mr. Donsig, is one of the things you missed...
Almightyjosh
Governor in Waiting
I think the census being low is even MORE of a problem. It is better that Laws be too difficult to implement than they be too easy!!
btw, this is post 600, yay! When I started out as governor I had 3 posts and thought 600 post people must know everything. Just shows how deluded you can be.
btw, this is post 600, yay! When I started out as governor I had 3 posts and thought 600 post people must know everything. Just shows how deluded you can be.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
i second cyc here. maybe we should also really throw out the term "census" and call it "average active citizen count"="aacc".
just to make clear that this does not have anything to do with the real citizen count.
i really hope someone does the work of averaging the polls of the terms... the results will give us the best numbers to run with.
the idea behind using the elections was only brought up, if you remember right, because averaging ALL polls (which would be the best way to get the aacc) of the last real-time month was too much work. we then went to average of elections and then to the presidential election to make the work easier, and not to make it more realistic...
in fact, the most honest number about the active citizen would propably be to get many numbers:
the active citizen average over the whole game would average ALL polls (including elections) over the whole game.
this would be kind of irrealistic, as the increases or decreases of citizens over time would not be reflected.
the active citizen average over the term would average all polls EXCLUDING elections of the last term, which would be the best guess because it would show the participation we must expect for any poll to be valid, and that is what we want. if a poll doesnt pass what the average of the other polls got, then it is propably not on long enough or just unwanted and ignored.
imho, the more polls we get into the average, the more true and realistic the value for the average active citizen count will be.
so as we cant monitor all polls (does someone volunteer?) the best aproach seems to be would be averaging the elections, as this is pretty easy to do.
the whole idea of the quorum was not to defend any lawmaking, but to prevent 3-vote polls to become binding. the main idea was also to prevent people from having 1 day polls with 7 votes (and this really happened in the first terms!) to be valid in the chat and used, despite the fact the discussion results were totally different. in that example, it showed that most of citizenry were against it... so there was the mess.
what you, donsig, seem to try now is misusing the quorum as a measure of preventing unwanted law proposal. this is the wrong measure for it. the quorum (and with it active citizen count) will only be there to show how much a poll will reflect "the will of citizenry". if we want laws harder to be made, we should adjust the acceptance level from 50% to 60% or 70%. that would be the right measure.
and to get this even further: i would also be pro a proposal to not have the quorum used directly binding, but to make it a "hypothetical binding" one... explanation:
a poll has 20 votes, 26 is quorum. 2 votes no, 18 votes yes. at the moment, the poll would be invalid and with this not binding despite the fact that even if all 6 missing votes to quorum would be no, the measure would pass.
a "hypothetical binding" quorum would accept the poll when run for a minimum of 48 hours, as it would be impossible to invalidate it at the moment the quorum is reached (at which the poll would be ended).
(please sorry for the wording, but i didnt find other words for it, maybe shaitan could reword it to be more understandable)
just to make clear that this does not have anything to do with the real citizen count.
i really hope someone does the work of averaging the polls of the terms... the results will give us the best numbers to run with.
the idea behind using the elections was only brought up, if you remember right, because averaging ALL polls (which would be the best way to get the aacc) of the last real-time month was too much work. we then went to average of elections and then to the presidential election to make the work easier, and not to make it more realistic...
in fact, the most honest number about the active citizen would propably be to get many numbers:
the active citizen average over the whole game would average ALL polls (including elections) over the whole game.
this would be kind of irrealistic, as the increases or decreases of citizens over time would not be reflected.
the active citizen average over the term would average all polls EXCLUDING elections of the last term, which would be the best guess because it would show the participation we must expect for any poll to be valid, and that is what we want. if a poll doesnt pass what the average of the other polls got, then it is propably not on long enough or just unwanted and ignored.
imho, the more polls we get into the average, the more true and realistic the value for the average active citizen count will be.
so as we cant monitor all polls (does someone volunteer?) the best aproach seems to be would be averaging the elections, as this is pretty easy to do.
the whole idea of the quorum was not to defend any lawmaking, but to prevent 3-vote polls to become binding. the main idea was also to prevent people from having 1 day polls with 7 votes (and this really happened in the first terms!) to be valid in the chat and used, despite the fact the discussion results were totally different. in that example, it showed that most of citizenry were against it... so there was the mess.
what you, donsig, seem to try now is misusing the quorum as a measure of preventing unwanted law proposal. this is the wrong measure for it. the quorum (and with it active citizen count) will only be there to show how much a poll will reflect "the will of citizenry". if we want laws harder to be made, we should adjust the acceptance level from 50% to 60% or 70%. that would be the right measure.
and to get this even further: i would also be pro a proposal to not have the quorum used directly binding, but to make it a "hypothetical binding" one... explanation:
a poll has 20 votes, 26 is quorum. 2 votes no, 18 votes yes. at the moment, the poll would be invalid and with this not binding despite the fact that even if all 6 missing votes to quorum would be no, the measure would pass.
a "hypothetical binding" quorum would accept the poll when run for a minimum of 48 hours, as it would be impossible to invalidate it at the moment the quorum is reached (at which the poll would be ended).
(please sorry for the wording, but i didnt find other words for it, maybe shaitan could reword it to be more understandable)
Shaitan
der Besucher
@disorganizer - The approval necessary for laws is already 2/3.
The "hypothetical quorum" you suggest is similar to the way the Council Votes work. Once an unbeatable majority is established, the Council Vote is over.
The "hypothetical quorum" you suggest is similar to the way the Council Votes work. Once an unbeatable majority is established, the Council Vote is over.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
@shaitan: i just posted the number without thinking. i always fall into this pit. but you realize what i mean... so just edit them to 66%,70% and 80% ;-)
we could also destinguish between absoulte majority (yes>no+abstain) and single majority (yes>no). do we do this? i think only in the constitutional amendment? or in all?
we could also destinguish between absoulte majority (yes>no+abstain) and single majority (yes>no). do we do this? i think only in the constitutional amendment? or in all?
Shaitan
der Besucher
Only constitutional changes require absolute majority.
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I think I shall open a thread regarding the open voting topic, as it is a bit off-topic for this discussion, and I wouldn't want one of our mods to smack me down!! ;-)
Bill
Bill
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
just askin...
where my free shirt?
where my free shirt?
donsig
Low level intermediary
And what pray tell whould the qourum have been in term four had we used the average?
donsig
Low level intermediary
aacc is great! Reminds me of a cat with a hairball.
Disorganizer: for the umpteenth time I do not care what you all do about making it more difficult or easy to pass laws. The census is in the constitution for the purpose of knowing how many votes are needed to make constitutional amendments. I have been saying that we should leave the constitution alone on this issue. If you all want to base the passage of laws on the average number of people who voted in all the elections or whatever then change the CoL and be done with it. The proposed constitutional amendment is not needed. We do not have to base everything on one census.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Here ya go!
donsig
Low level intermediary
Love the shirt. Can I have one that says, "I survived PI#6 (I think)"?
Shaitan
der Besucher
That's a good one! I've got the blank at work, I'll get it to you tomorrow.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Here it is, hot off the presses.
donsig
Low level intermediary
Thanks Shaitan! 
Shaitan
der Besucher
My pleasure.
Excellent idea for a T. Care to invest in the "T" Boutique in Game 2? I can always use a creative partner.
Excellent idea for a T. Care to invest in the "T" Boutique in Game 2? I can always use a creative partner.
Stuck_as_a_Mac
Aptenodytes forsteri
you misspelt lousy. its spelt the way i just spelt it
sorry!
ps- can i have an "I love my over-inflated ego shirt"?
sorry!
ps- can i have an "I love my over-inflated ego shirt"?
donsig
Low level intermediary
Originally posted by Shaitan
My pleasure.
Excellent idea for a T. Care to invest in the "T" Boutique in Game 2? I can always use a creative partner.
Would my commision be based on the quantity or quality of PI's I manage to get into?
BTW, how long does this poll remain open? I would think that once the census changes, this poll becomes obsolete.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I want a "Civ3: Game of Litigation" t-shirt, since this seems to be what it's turned into this last week 
Similar threads
