Citizen Discussion - Adjust Quorum/Census Levels?

[Cyc]

Quoting Bill in PDX:
Put me in the camp of those who believe that silence is agreement. I don't subscribe to the theory that any citizen here speaks for the majority of the people, no matter what they themselves may think.

So, Bill, if they're silent, what are they agreeing on? And how do we know if anyone here speaks for the majority of the people if they're silent? And if no one here speaks for the majority of the people, are we all speaking about issues that have little support?
No gold stars for you, Bill.

 

[Cyc]

Quoting Donsig:
It has been avoided because of the the rules wrangling we've done. Even I became wary of using that latitute after a couple investigations. The DP is also in a tough spot because there may well be citizens voicing opinions on a given matter but a leader may neglect to post instructions. Like any leader the DP should be following the will of the people.

No, Donsig, you just got tired of being investigated. There were rules before you got into your jam, and there were rules after you got into your jam. No matter what the rules are someone is always going to want to change them. I would like to make a rule that prohibits endless lobbying for one's own personal agenda. But that's another story.

In this matter of the DP not using the latitude given that position, if one is timid in their approach to using that latitude, it doesn't matter what their reasoning is, their still being timid. We elect Leaders, not poll watchers. Any person that assumes the DP position can surely read and should have a fairly good idea of the people's will on most issues, whether a Department Leader posts about it or not.

As far as making Laws difficult to change, I really don't see what the problem is...

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by donsig


Extra gold stars! And I thought I was getting carried away.

Now you are just trying to milk it with this last one. Minus two gold stars, and one future PI as punishment.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Cyc
So, Bill, if they're silent, what are they agreeing on? And how do we know if anyone here speaks for the majority of the people if they're silent? And if no one here speaks for the majority of the people, are we all speaking about issues that have little support?
No gold stars for you, Bill.

Well I want my gold stars dammit!

I think I am guilty of not putting this in the proper context. Let me try a different angle.

I think the DP should have latitude to take action in a game that they feel is appropriate when there are not previously designated instructions for the same. I agree with Shaitan that our laws, in their cold black and white state, support that view.

However, our leaders are somewhat hampered by the fear of not following the will of the people, as they should be. Some citizens consider their views to be the will of the people by default, and that is just wrong. Leaders should not be afraid to confront those assertions and dispell the notion.

If a given citizen complains about a leaders decision, that is fine, and a good part of democracy, but that leader should not assume that the complaintant has the will of the people on their side. If the majority of citizens are not rising up in opposition, then I would assume the majority are satisfied (or not sufficiently angered to voice an opinion) with the leadership. I think you have to take that angle or you end up with stagnate leadership.

For further illustration, there are only two leaders in my opinion who have come close to violating the will. One would be a former governor who had basically abandoned his provice, the other would be gold star donsig in the famous PI#6, but even he found vindication in the vote. So my theory holds water based upon actual events.

As all of you know, I am hardly a big fan of chat turns. But I feel if we are going to have them, then the DP should be entrusted with some decision power that they feel that they can act on without fear of being pounded.

Some of that has to come from the leader themselves, it's called leadership, not poll following. The other part has to come from our laws backing up the majority, not the squeaky wheels.

EDIT: For use of too many "However"'s and needless comparison.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Caveat: For a term such as #5 where the Presidential election participation is far greater than the average election participation, this change will make it easier to qualify a poll to change a law. Recommended action to retain the speedbump in the legislative process is to change the approval ratio required for a law to be changed/added from 2/3 to 3/4.

Anti-Caveat: No matter what, this game is supposed to be about the will of the people. 2/3 is already a supermajority. If this high a ratio of people want new laws then they should get their new laws.
[/B]

I see no need for the 3/4 hurdle. 2/3 is more than enough given a reasonable quorum requirement.

 

[disorganizer]

i dont second bill here.

another proposal:
3/4 for constitutional change, 2/3 for law change.
standards should be 1/3 quorum propably.
details are defined in executive regulations put up by the executive without any poll but not to conflict with existing cons, laws or standards

revert all laws back to standard and let them be brought to law as needed.

this would lead to the following:
constitution:
very plain and raw document with basic ruleset. no details (yes, even no department-definitions!) in there
laws:
better refinement of the constitution, but still vague and so also pretty hard to change. gives detailed intructions for example on which departments we have, but does not go into too detail like defining what departments do. another example would be to define that chats are announced in advance, but not how long.

standards:
still citizen decided, but easy to change. 1/3 quorum level will be enough propably.
they get into more detail, like define what exactly departments do and some more details on the game, but still dont define everyday live. a good example could also be to define here that a chat schedule has to be posted 1 day minimum in advance and that the announcement must contain the dates for the following week.

regulaions:
purely defined by executive. every department leader can define the regulations for his department, like how to post things in the thread etc. an example would be to define that the chat schedule for the following week will be posted on sundays and to define on which thread to post them.


(somehow i remember to have posted those proposals before... history repeats itself)


i really strictly oppose a quorum of 2/3 for laws with all those "should be standard"-laws active because we wont be able to change them any more!

 

[donsig]

What is the real difference between our standards and laws (other than the way we enact them)?

I think our constitution is fine - though we may want to change a couple things for the new game. (Optional turn chats, definition of terms and census calculation. Have been batted around so far. I think we should add the law about not playing the game.)

The CoL and CoS need some serious work IMHO. I think we should initially carry over only what we need at the beginning of the game. Having only one book of laws would be nice.

Disorganizer's idea of regulations has merit. I think it's what I've been proposing only he's calling them regulations. I don't really think the regulations have to be codified. We do not need a CoR on top of what we already have.

There's only three weeks or so until Sept. 1 and we need to have term one elections done before then if we are to begin playing on Sept. 1. I suggest we quit sparring and start deciding on any changes we want to the constitution. If any are made the CoL and CoS will be impacted. Time's a wasting folks!

 

[disorganizer]

donsig: the problem i have with the standards you propose them is that all minor issues (parks for example) are standards in your proposal which can be changed without citizens approval.
i split this up in standards which are easy to change (the 1/3 quorum should be possible within 1-2 days) and the regulations which is your definition of the standards.
making laws hard to change MUST lead to a book of minor rules to be changeable with easy citizen polls.
another problem with having all minor rules as regulations:
they change with the administrational ppl building them (as no citizen polls are needed).

example:
parks (again?)
the citizens want them. but if we get administration that doesnt want them, with your proposal it could be easily deleted from the ruleset without the citizens having a word over it (except making a almost impossible to make law... haha).
if we use the 4-book approach, we could have the parks as standard. this means it can only be deleted or altered by a (easy to achive though) citizen poll.
we could even go further and split it up:
make the general idea a law (so deleting it is hard)
and the implementation (example denied buildings) a standard (easy to change)
and have the details (how is it run? how expanded etc) a regulation, as its only an organizational task.
to the laws almost cant be deleted from the rules, but can easily be changed by the citizens. and the administration has full and easy controll about how to implement the ruleset for them setup by citizenry.

i also think the regulations must not be part of the constitution. i think they should be implemented as normal "edict-thread" in the government forum, as they only define how the executive of our nation organizes itself and which processes they defined to inact the rules (which must all be made by citizenry, not by their represantants).

 

[Eklektikos]

I would like to say that I support Shaitan's proposal, and that I'm not yet awake enough to write anything more on the subject at this time in the morning. Expect a more extensive post later

 

[Shaitan]

As this would be a Constitution change, a poll of the Congress (citizenry) AND a poll of the Senate (governors) would be necessary. The Senate poll will be similar in form to a Council Vote (disclosed votes). The particulars below are for the Congressional poll. Also note that the requirements to pass a Consitutional change are very high. A majority of all citizens must approve it (26 YES votes) as well as 2/3 of all governors.

Poll Title
Constitution change in how the Census is figured.

Poll question and options
Do you support the Constitution change detailed in the first post?

• YES
• NO
• ABSTAIN

First Post
Original Article (section to be changed is in blue)
Article I: The number of votes cast in the most recent presidential election shall constitute a census of citizens (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.

Proposed Change (change is in blue)
Article I: The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute a census of citizens (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.

Clarification
This change would change our census from being equal to the number of votes in the latest Presidential election to being an average of the number of votes in all of the latest round elections that had votes (uncontested positions are not averaged in with a zero vote count).

Background
This topic was discussed in this thread.

Poll Duration
This poll will close after 48 hours or when a majority is reached either for or against the proposal (26 YES or 26 NO votes), whichever comes later.

 

[Cyc]

I second this proposed poll, also.

 

[disorganizer]

i also second it, but do we round up or down on the average for the quorum? or mathematically (<.5 down, >=.5 up)?
i would propose always up.

 

[Shaitan]

Always round up to the nearest whole number as that is consistant with the quorum rounding. The division to the quorum number will always catch it correctly if we do so.

Example: 30.17 would make a quorum of 15.085 which rounds to 16. Rounding 30.17 to 31 still makes a quorum of 16. If we rounded 30.17 down to 30 the quorum would only be 15.

 

[disorganizer]

where is this in the rules? maybe a standard for it would be good to clarify it, because one could also round down or mathematically which would change the quorum level.

 

[Shaitan]

The specification is half of the citizens. The actual quorum right now is 25.5 making the effective quorum 26. Any rounding is just to make it easier for the people to understand. The actual numbers remain unchanged.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Judge Advocate Review -
Proposed Change to Phoenatican Constitution - Article I

Change to Quorum Calculation

In accordance with Section E, Point 6, multiple subsections, of the Phoenatican Code of Laws, I submit the Judge Advocate review of this proposal, currently proposed in this thread.

Findings: The JA office has determined that this change would not be a violation of the Constitution.

Therefore I cast my vote in favor of allowing a poll for passage.

Explaination: This change would shift Phoenatica off of the quorum standard that is driven by participation in the Presidential Election only, and instead use an average of all elections in which more than one candidate participated.

Article I of the Constitution is not overriden by any other part of the constitution, and the Code of Laws and Standards are written using the term quorum independantly of how that quorum is calculated. Therefore this change is sufficient on it's own to work within our legal structure.

Bill
Judge Advocate of Phoenatica

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by disorganizer
another proposal:
3/4 for constitutional change, 2/3 for law change.
standards should be 1/3 quorum propably.
details are defined in executive regulations put up by the executive without any poll but not to conflict with existing cons, laws or standards

i really strictly oppose a quorum of 2/3 for laws with all those "should be standard"-laws active because we wont be able to change them any more!

I am not opposed to what you propose here dis, but this does seem to conflict with your desire to keep power in the people's hands. A 3/4 hurdle is a very difficult standard to achieve because in effect it further empowers the minority to block the will of the people.

 

[disorganizer]

the numbers are discussable (that what we are here for), its the general idea i propose...

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Proposed Change (change is in blue)
Article I: The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections shall constitute a census of citizens (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the Constitution. A 2/3 majority of the Senate shall be required to ratify said amendment.

Everyone knows by now that I am opposed to this change so I won't rehash the arguments here. However, I would like to point out some new dangers I see in the proposed wording. The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested elections is surely in the spirit of vague constitutional wording that we have come to know and love. It may be a little too vague, though. The proposal is written under the assumption that we will always have all our elections at the same time. Imagine trying to institute a schedule where we elect governors mid-month and department leaders ate the end of the month. Would our census change every two weeks? Adopting this wording may also result in anoth roadblock for local elections.

I am also against this proposal as it really has nothing to do with the subject at hand. This thread was started because some people think it is too difficult to pass laws. The constitution does not say a lick about what it takes to pass a law or a standard. Change the CoL and CoS if you must but leave the constitution alone on this matter. Remember that by changing the rules in this way we may be reopening the door for easier constitutional changes!

 

[Cyc]

zzzzzzzz...zzzzzzzzz....what? oh, is Donsig done?

Donsig, I'm sure after you thought about it for a couple of seconds, you realized the census of the citizens (the Congress) would be taken after the end of month elections, as usual. In doing so, the Chief Justice would take into account all elections that took place during the month (since the last census). This would give him a fairly good idea of the total amount of citizens voting in the total amount of elections held since the last census.

As to your second point, the Article in question deals with the census of citizens in regards to a quorum used to amend and ratify the Constitution. That same census is used as a basis for the quorums in the validity of polls dealing with laws and standards. So, it seems to me this proposal is in the right place.