Citizen Discussion - Adjust Quorum/Census Levels?

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
Wrong again, Donsig. We got a Culture Victory instead of a spaceship victory because ONE citizen (YOU) paid attention to that poll. BTW, thank you very much!

Isn't that what elected officials are supposed to do? BTW, you're welcome!

Personally, I was torn between spaceship and culture. I point out this poll because it is a great example that the will of the people can be split sometimes.

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, the will of the people can indeed be split sometimes. It's much more comfortable when a leader can act with the knowledge that an overwhelming majority support the action. However, decisions must be made and actions must be taken. If a poll results in a 1 vote decision, that's the way it is.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Yes, the will of the people can indeed be split sometimes. It's much more comfortable when a leader can act with the knowledge that an overwhelming majority support the action. However, decisions must be made and actions must be taken. If a poll results in a 1 vote decision, that's the way it is.

Well, was it a valid binding poll or wasn't it?

Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[disorganizer]

If it had 26 votes and was a game decission poll, yes.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
If it had 26 votes and was a game decission poll, yes.

10 + 9 + 1 = 20. Does that mean I could have ignored the poll without any problems?

 

[disorganizer]

yes >-)
now lets calculate:
it would have needed single majority
quorum is 26
so 6 more votes could have gone 10-15... or 16-9. it was not decided yet and so did not close in time. from our rules---it was not binding!!!
if it would have been 13-9 it would have been more difficult, as the missing 3 votes could not have turned it around any more. with a discussable conclusion of that even that poll would have been invalid because of not getting the quorum ;-) even if it would never have been able to turn it around.

but you may then have been falling over a constitutional paragraph, after which you would have to do your best to get the will of citizenry.
i would believe in this situation, a chat-citizen poll would have been also fit to decide what to do ;-)

 

[disorganizer]

btw: hope you notice with the new quorum calculation the quorum would have been 20 and the poll valid!

 

[Shaitan]

Was that poll in Term 5?

Anyway - if the poll did not meet quorum then it is not valid and the appropriate Leader would be free to make the decision in question based on lack of citizen response.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Was that poll in Term 5?

Anyway - if the poll did not meet quorum then it is not valid and the appropriate Leader would be free to make the decision in question based on lack of citizen response.

That's easy for you to say you weren't on the hot seat! It a lose-lose situation for the DP. Either way he or she risks incurring the wrath of about half the people who voted in the poll.

And, yes it was in term 5.

 

[Shaitan]

Yes, it was definitely a difficult position to be in. However, the rules are pretty clear here. With only 20 citizens responding, quorum was not met so the poll was invalid. The DP could have make any decision they desired and been totally clear under the law.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Yes, it was definitely a difficult position to be in. However, the rules are pretty clear here. With only 20 citizens responding, quorum was not met so the poll was invalid. The DP could have make any decision they desired and been totally clear under the law.

Yeah, and the president could legally veto constitutional amendments in term three. I did that and was investigated. I was cleared because it was legal but then came my mis-step in the handling of selling medicine and those who lost the legal battle over the veto jumped at the chance to try to impeach me again! That effort failed and the failure was attributed to poll rigging. These allegations extended to the presidential election itself. Due to these unsubstantiated allegations we now have people who want to discount those who vote in the presidential elections by trying to average out the *inactive* citizens. Should I recount the Deputy Debates here as well?

C'mon Shaitan, resign as a mod and run for president. Then we can talk about what a binding poll is.

 

[Shaitan]

If we could have had offline turns I would have run for Pres long ago.

 

[disorganizer]

And would have propably been elected ;-)
@donsig: dont try to generalize here. not everybody picks back on old issues like you do

 

[disorganizer]

take an average of the poll participation over a whole term without the elections.
you will hardly have 20 votes.
now which quorum is more realistic? 20 or 26? i believe 20...
can someone do the average for term4 please?
and maybe also for term5 to compare with both elections.

 

[donsig]

Shaitan and I would like to propose a compromise solution. I would like to present the gist of the proposal here for discussion. When Shaitan returns I'm hoping he will post the specific wording required so it can also be discussed.

The compromise proposal is to have a dual standard, one for constitutional changes and one for quorums. The idea is to maintain maximum protection for the constitution while at the same time providing a more reliable and workable figure for quorums. This makes sense to me as we have put much effort into our constitution and changes to it should not be taken lightly. At the same time we want to reach our goal of having a Code of Laws that can be changed with a reasonable effort.

We propose to accomplish this by basing the census on the election with the highest voter turn out rather than basing it on the number of votes in the presidential election. This should help smooth out the variations in the census. Since constitutional amendments will still require a majority of the census for approval we will be maintaining maximum protection for our constitution.

Quorums would not be based on the constitutional census but on an active census which will be taken from the average of the polls (or elections?). Shaitan can better explain this end of the propsal so I will leave that to him.

Our proposal is (as always) open to discussion. We would need to amend the constitution and also change the CoL - maybe the CoS as well. Changes to the CoL would be needed to institute the active census and define the quorum. A constitutional amendment is required to redefine the other census. (We need a new term for active census.) I think two different polls will be required so I will leave the poll writing to the experts.

I do support this compromise. I think it is one where both sides get what they want. I look forward to hearing comments on the compromise.

 

[Octavian X]

This is an interesting compromise. A dual standard would ensure easy law changes, but difficult constitutional changes.

Originally posted by donsig
Quorums would not be based on the constitutional census but on an active census which will be taken from the average of the polls (or elections?). Shaitan can better explain this end of the propsal so I will leave that to him.

Would this method be the same as the one in the current constitutional amendment being voted on?

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Octavian X
Would this method be the same as the one in the current constitutional amendment being voted on?

I'm not sure. Shaitan and I discussed this via pm and his message said the active census would be taken from the average of the polls. I'm not sure if he's using polls here to mean election polls or all polls. I know there has been discussion of both methods here. We'll have to wait for his clarification when he returns. In the mean time, we are free to chime in with what we think it should be.

I think we should base the active census on the election polls since that would be easier.

Whichever method is used, this change could be made by changing the CoL which is (even now) easier than changing the constitution. If this poll had been for a change in the CoL instead of for a constitutional amendment, it would have passed already.

 

[Almightyjosh]

OK, maybe we need to name the beast a little here...

The Total Registered Citizens Census (TRCC)
Is the number and stats of all the citizens registered in the nation. That is, all those who make a post in the registry.

The Average Active Citizen Count (AACC)
Is the average of the number of voters in every contested election.
(credit goes to dis for this name)

The High Threshold Citizen Count (HTCC)
Is the number of votes in the election with the most number of votes cast.

The Presidential Election Citizen Count (PECC)
Is the number of votes cast in the Presidential Election (assumes contest)


These names may help identify what we mean to each other!! All four of these are manages by the Census department. Note that to avoid the confusion we've been experiencing, Census and Citizen count have been differentiated.

 

[disorganizer]

Maybe we should also split something:

Average total active citizen count
ATACC=average over all polls of the game

Average active citizen count
AACC=roaming average for all polls of the last 30 days.

Average election citizen count
AECC=average for all elections

i would say the numbers will be:
AECC>AACC>ATACC

The AACC will be the best value for active citizens, but the AECC would be easier to calculate but with a small error. the ATACC doesnt reflect citizen count changes during the game.

Maybe the ATACC should be replaced by a 95PTACC to calulate the 95th percentile of the ATACC ;-)

 

[chiefpaco]

Percentiles? Double-standards? HTCC? Averages? Calculations? Quorums? Census? Constitutions? Democracy?

I hope new Judicial members take an exam before taking office

I got lost a long time ago. I think the new refinement we're voting on marginally improves the rule we had. It is starting to look like things are getting too complicated and nit-picky. This is where my train stops. Bye-bye for now and best of luck