Approval requirements for passing a law.

[Shaitan]

This topic was discussed in the Framing the Code of Laws thread. This poll is to determine what will be presented when that main topic is polled for acceptance. This poll is not to approve any new law/rule/etc.

In the discussion noted above there were two methods of law approval presented:

• Method one: Supermajority of voting citizens (The Congress). Specifically, the number of "Yes" votes in a law approval poll would have to be at least double the number of "No" votes for a new law to be approved. "Abstain" votes would be excluded from the results determination.
• Method two: A majority of voting citizens (The Congress) plus a majority of voting governors (The Senate). Specifically the number of "Yes" votes in a citizen poll for law approval must be greater than the number of "No" votes for a new law to be approved and the number of "Yes" votes in a poll of the governors would have to outnumber the "No" votes in that governors' poll for a law to be passed. In both polls "Abstain" votes would be excluded from the results determination.

This poll will remain open for 48 hours

 

[Peri]

So method 1 means that a no vote is worth 2 yes votes.
How is that fair or reasonable?

 

[Shaitan]

That's one way to look at it but the object is quite different. A required supermajority means that a law can't be passed unless it has "grand" support of the populace. The object is to limit (or prohibit) the number of special interest laws and rules that will not be supported in good spirit by the players. "No" voters aren't getting 2 votes, the proposed measure is being tested for a supermajority of support.

 

[Peri]

Ahhh. I see. However it did not occur to me that 'special interest laws' would be proposed since that is rather against the spirit of the game. My concern is that laws which enhance the game can be blocked easily. In order to vote a proposed law down the no vote only needs to be a 34%.
If special interest laws are the concern perhaps a proposed law needs to be demonstrably in the public interest. if a proposed law applies to only a few people then it can be seen to be against the public interest. In such circumstances the law should become null and void.

Any thoughts on this counter proposal?

 

[Shaitan]

That would introduce a large amount of subjectivity into the process. Who decides if a law isn't valid? The other big effect of a supermajority requirement is it keeps the amount of laws down. There won't be stopgap and instant issue laws passed. We've had a horrible time with those in the past games.

 

[Peri]

I cant argue with keeping laws to a minimum.
My concern specifically is that I am touting a proposal around at the moment regarding reforming the electoral process. It is not a 'special interest law' and may actually enhance the gaming experience for many. However it stands a good chance of not being passed under method 1 which I believe would be a shame.

Btw. Feel free to delete my posts here if you feel that they are a distraction from the original thread proposal

 

[Shaitan]

Absolutely not a distraction, Peri. Discussion is always encouraged in the actual discussion threads and in the polls.

What you'll need to do to get your election proposal passed into law under method 1 is campaign. Convince people that it is the way to go and modify it through discussion until it has the general acceptance of the people. IMHO this is exactly what we want to be required.

 

[Cyc]

I voted for Method Two. I never really liked the amount of votes needed for the supermajority method. Although I initially wanted to experiment with it when you first proposed it in DG2, when I saw the CoL amendments I tried to pass get shot down by 1 vote on a supermajority, it was rather dis-heartening. It won and lost at the same time.

As we only have one Governor, I don't really see how Method Two is a relevant option, but I like it better than Method One.

 

[Shaitan]

Method two actually requires 100% of governor approval until we have 3 functional provinces.

 

[donsig]

I don't like either option because of the term voting citizens. When it comes to your everyday run of the mill polls that phrase is appropriate but when it comes to passing *laws* we need some form of (I know it's a bad word but it does have a nice Roman ring to it) quorum. Under the proposals we could have a handfull of citizens passing laws. Laws should not become laws unless there is a substantial showing of support for said laws from the citizens. One suggested way would be to use a quorum of one third of the Congress and then use simple majority of those voting once quorum is reached. With a Congress of size 60 there would have to be at least 20 votes cast (including abstain) to reach quorum. If quorum is reached then the yes votes must outnumber the sum of no and abstain votes for the measure to pass.
An alternative method would be to use a *magic number* system. Say the *magic number* is 25% of the Congress. Once the yes votes to a proposed law reaches the *magic number* the law is passed unless outnumbered by no votes. With a Congress of size 60 a *magic number* of 25% would be 15. Drum up 15 yes votes and you can pass your law unless 15 or more citizens voted no.
There may also be more creative ways to accomplish the same thing but the point is to ensure some minimum level of citizen participation in passing laws. Compare my suggestions above to a Congress of size 60 amending the constitution. That would take 31 yes votes and require Senate approval.
BTW, I do not think the Senate spproval should be required for making laws.

 

[Bootstoots]

I voted for method two. However, until we have three governors, we should elect a senator-at-large to fill in and make so that the rules cannot be vetoed by one person.

 

[Octavian X]

Octavian looks at boots proposal, and adds another item to his list of ideas that he proposed that were reproposed by others.

I like boots idea, and suuport method two.

Acutally, I suggest another system entirely. Perhaps we could have ALL branches of our government sign off on a new law - votes by the Senate, Congress, Council, and Judiciary. Just a thought.

 

[DaveShack]

I don't like either of the alternatives listed in this poll. The supermajority idea has been tried in RL, often to regulate raising taxes, and is an unmitigated disaster. The alternative of allowing a majority of citizens + governors gives a huge amount of power to an even smaller number of people than the 34% who can veto a measure that requires a supermajority.

This is probably a little too complicated for a game , but my preferred alternative would be:

A supermajority of "citizen" yes votes (Yes >= No*2) without a quorum of 50% of registered voters + 1;

OR

A majority of "citizen" votes + a majority of "council" votes [council = elected officials of all types] without a quorum

OR

A majority of "citizen" votes, with a quorum

This proposal, while complicated, has the following properties:

• a traditional majority can act if supported by the elected officials, but the "council" can veto damaging issues which don't garner a supermajority
• If voter turnout is more than 50%, then the issue is important and neither the 34% nor the council should be allowed to veto it.

I know, this is probably too complicated, but think it's worth discussion at least.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I think that proposal two is certainly the better. It means that we have a congress that can easily show its approval/disapproal for a law, and then that law is effectively 'ratified' by the Senate. This was the idea in the original constitution of phanatica, that approval for a change to law (back then it was the constitution) had to coem from the general citizenry, and the elected council of governors, the Senate.

 

[Shaitan]

@donsig - Neither of these options preclude a quorum. This poll is for which approval requirement is desired. I recommend bringing up quorum in the discussion thread where we can hash it out and then poll suggestions.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I favor option 2.

Under option 1, a definate minority of the citizenry is given extraordinary rights to defy the will of the majority.

 

[Bootstoots]

Discussion on Senators-at-Large has started here.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
@donsig - Neither of these options preclude a quorum. This poll is for which approval requirement is desired. I recommend bringing up quorum in the discussion thread where we can hash it out and then poll suggestions.

I have raised the subject in the discussion thread. I still do not like either of these proposals. The Senate should not have veto power over laws and it should not take a two to one majority to pass a law. The decision on the establishment of quorums is an integral part of the decision this poll seeks to make. In other words I think the cart has been put before the horse.

I would suggest a compromise though if our citizens are intent upon involving the Senate in our lawmaking process. Let a simple majority be able to approve a law and give the Senate approval power as stated in method two with the proviso that if there is a supermajority of citizen approval then Senate approval is not needed. This compromise in effect gives the citizens an over-ride of a gubernatorial veto. (Note that even in this compromise case I still think we need to establish quorums for passing laws.)

 

[Shaitan]

I very much like donsig's combination approach. As the approval for both single systems is very close I think this would be an ideal solution.

 

[Cyc]

I like it too, Shaitan. Can you give me a run-down on the procedure for polling a proposed law? How does it get started and who puts it to a poll and when? The basic nuts and bolts for getting a LAW to a polling stage.