Amending Article I Census and Amending the Constitution

[Strider]

Yes, I'm trying to Amend the Amending the Constitution section of the Constitution (well, that's repetive).

Here is the current amendment:

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 67% majority of Yes votes over No votes, Abstain
notwithstanding.
c. A total number of 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.

Here is my proposal:

Article I. Census, and Amending the Constitution
1. The census shall be defined as the average number of votes cast, dropping fractions.
a. The Census shall be determined from a poll posted in the Polls section by the current Chief Justice at the start of nominations.
2. Ratification of Amendments to the Constitution shall require each of the following, in order:
a. A discussion showing the current amendment, if any, and the proposed amendment, to run for 48 hours or untill discussion dies down.
b. Submittion of the proposed amendment to the current Judiciary to check for conflicts.
c. A Poll to run for 96 hours, to be posted by the Chief Justice, showing the current amendment, if any, and the proposed amendment. The poll shall be formatted with YES / NO / ABSTAIN, and must receive 2/3 of the vote.
d. A total number of votes greater than or equal to 2/3 of the current census, abstain not withstanding, at the start of voting on the amendment, dropping any fraction therein.

-----------------------

This makes three main changes:
1) By determining the Census inside of the polls forum, you receive a more accurate assessment of the Census. Many votes could be from people who clicked on the main demogame link and did not bother to goto the polls.

2) It removes the "Proposed Poll" section of amending the constitution. If I'm thinking correctly, this serves very little purpose, and it's not clearly defined to begin with.

3) It requires a 48 hour discussion period before being polled, this guarantee's that it is properly discussed before being polled.

 

[MOTH]

I am not in favor of changes to #1 as I think the contested elections give a good count. During election time many people might not get to the "census poll". At the minimum you would need to define how long the census poll is open.

I am in favor or 2, although it needs to be clear how abstain is handled. You should add back in that "abstain not withstanding" line. IE: I want abstains to count towards quorum and not count as either yes or no votes.

I am in favor of the 48 hours minimum.

 

[Cyc]

I am totally against all of the proposal. Averaging the votes in all the polls is the only way we should be determining the census representing the people. Putting some kind of roll call poll in the Poll sub-forum while all the voting is going on in the Main forum would be disasterous. We could have the return of 60+ votes in the polls, but only have 25 people who cared to vote in the roll call poll. Not a good idea.

Having a discussion about a proposed Law until it dies downand then presenting the Proposed Poll to the PEOPLE is the only way to do it. That way EVERYONE gets to see the proposed end result BEFORE it goes to the Judiciary. Not allowing the people to discuss the proposed Law over a weekend and come to terms on it the following week because you shipped off YOUR Amendment to the Judiciary while they were at the park with the family is the wrong way to do things.

You also dropped thepart about Abstain not withstanding in the voting results. This process took us a long time to resolve. We shouldn't be making these changes now. I see no reason for changing something that works perfectly, just so people can rush amendments through to the Judiciary and make it easy for their proposal to pass.

 

[Strider]

I am totally against all of the proposal. Averaging the votes in all the polls is the only way we should be determining the census representing the people. Putting some kind of roll call poll in the Poll sub-forum while all the voting is going on in the Main forum would be disasterous. We could have the return of 60+ votes in the polls, but only have 25 people who cared to vote in the roll call poll. Not a good idea.

Having a discussion about a proposed Law until it dies downand then presenting the Proposed Poll to the PEOPLE is the only way to do it. That way EVERYONE gets to see the proposed end result BEFORE it goes to the Judiciary. Not allowing the people to discuss the proposed Law over a weekend and come to terms on it the following week because you shipped off YOUR Amendment to the Judiciary while they were at the park with the family is the wrong way to do things.

You also dropped thepart about Abstain not withstanding in the voting results. This process took us a long time to resolve. We shouldn't be making these changes now. I see no reason for changing something that works perfectly, just so people can rush amendments through to the Judiciary and make it easy for their proposal to pass.

Rush proposals through? With this proposal it will take an average of 2 more days to get an amendment pushed through.

The proposed poll part was removed, because it was not clear what a proposed poll was, heck it's not even again inside of the entire constitution!

The dropping of the Abstain not withstanding was just something I left out on accident, and it will be added again later.

Currently, determining the Census inside of the Polls forum, where the census is actually used would be the most accurate way to do it. Then we see how many people actually goto, and vote inside of the Polls Forum.

The elections get votes from random passer-by's and peoples friends who they ask to vote for them. Using the elections as the Census is extremely inaccurate, because elections draw the most attention. Normal polls inside of the polls forum gets anywhere between 20 to 30 votes. Whereas the elections get anywhere from 30 to 40 votes. So we have a census that is about 10 votes inaccurate.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I'll try to keep it civil. Can you?

Rush proposals through? With this proposal it will take an average of 2 more days to get an amendment pushed through.

The proposed poll part was removed, because it was not clear what a proposed poll was, heck it's not even again inside of the entire constitution!

The dropping of the Abstain not withstanding was just something I left out on accident, and it will be added again later.

Regarding proposed polls, we can have a discussion as to whether Cyc's enduring policies for the Judiciary should be ratified into law. Until then, our Constitution goves full reign to the elected Chief Justice for these matters. Besides, although "proposed poll" is not defined, I think it is pretty clear what it means in its current Constitutional form.

Please make sure the "abstain notwithstanding" part returns. Otherwise it will look like you are trying to validate your recent Honors Poll decision. Not a shot; just friendly advice.

Currently, determining the Census inside of the Polls forum, where the census is actually used would be the most accurate way to do it. Then we see how many people actually goto, and vote inside of the Polls Forum.

The elections get votes from random passer-by's and peoples friends who they ask to vote for them. Using the elections as the Census is extremely inaccurate, because elections draw the most attention. Normal polls inside of the polls forum gets anywhere between 20 to 30 votes. Whereas the elections get anywhere from 30 to 40 votes. So we have a census that is about 10 votes inaccurate.

That where the 2/3rds of the census part comes in. It effectively whittles down the voting requirement. Remember, we don't want to make it too easy to pass a law either.

 

[ravensfire]

That where the 2/3rds of the census part comes in. It effectively whittles down the voting requirement. Remember, we don't want to make it too easy to pass a law either.

To nitpick, it's to make it difficult to pass a change the Constitution. That document defines the structure, the basis of our laws. As such, change should be done when needed, not a whim. The threshold for amendment is set at a high level to achieve that goal.

The Code Of Laws is intended to be fill in the gaps, to give more detail where needed. It's much easier to change, with a much lower threshold.

-- Ravensfire