Citizens Poll :Re Governor

[Bill_in_PDX]

Originally posted by Rain
Protests against unacceptable actions are not a waste of time in my book and they count just as much as any other vote.

An absention indicates a person has no wish to express an opinion which is also a valid approach.

I am well aware of what an absention means, thank you though for your clarification.

I also fully respect the protest that was staged, even though I don't agree with it. However, to the question posed, the protest votes are wasted, and allowed a small number of votes to carry the result...very similar to our chats by the way

Originally posted by disorganizer
the interpretation of this vote is up to the 2 councilmen. not the president or someone else.

so rain and shaitan decide how they interpret the result. nobody else. even not bill and donsig ;-).

Is it your intention to promote a break from the constitution equally bad as donsig's alleged violation? See below.

Section D: The Cabinet

Article 4: At-large council members are responsible for representing the will of the people in Cabinet Votes. They will poll for popular opinion on prospective Cabinet issues and MUST vote according to those poll results.

Bill
...in PDX

 

[disorganizer]

they will comply to the article. they will take the winning option. as i stated. so they will boycott (standing at the moment).
donsig and you started interpreting the result. this is not your job.
you should read posts in full length and more carefully, bill.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

Oh, I read results quite carefully. Thank you for your concern in that matter, it's quite heartening to me.

Should they choose to boycott the vote, that would be fine with me, as it would simply expidite the installation of Civinator as govenor, and demonstrate that neither are deserving of my vote in the next election.

Not that I expect Rain to be counting on it anyway ;-)

Bill

 

[Cyc]

Bill, your teeth are showing. Why do we have argue like this? It's obvious to me that most, if not everyone wanted Rain to post a poll. She complied. She wrote the poll in a manner to include all different aspects of the issue.
Rain wanted to originally boycott the vote, as it turned out citizen support flowed to her stance on the issue. Because the boycott option is the leader, that is the way the council member should vote. And the boycott vote is not a waste of time. It is a representation of our citizens feeling on the issue. Nothing in that regard is a waste of time (IMO). If the council vote carries, then it carries without Rain's vote. What's the problem? So Rain's vote is a political statement, it represents the citizenry. What's the problem. Dis is correct.

 

[Chieftess]

hehe.. boycott != (does not equal) ignore.

Ignore is not voting, and boycotting IS a voting option.

Or, maybe we should have another investigation on those who wish to now usurp voting powers.

 

[Immortal]

isnt boycott the same as not voting? in which case all the votes for boycotting are counted as such? Which would make this vote invalid and disallow the installation of civinator?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Immortal
isnt boycott the same as not voting? in which case all the votes for boycotting are counted as such? Which would make this vote invalid and disallow the installation of civinator?

This vote counts for two votes out of 8 in the cabinet poll for ratification.

I am really not sure why this is such a big deal. Civinator is a trusted and respected citizen of Phoenatica with prior government experience. It is not going to hurt to let him set the build queues for a couple days.

 

[donsig]

This poll only serves to highlight the defects in our constitutional process. While this is a poll started by a councilmember-at-large in order determine what vote should be made in a council vote it is still a citizen poll.

Yes, disorganizer, it is up to Rain to interpret the results of this poll for purposes of voting in the council vote. There is however a larger issue here and it goes right to the heart of what is being boycotted:

Section J: Impeachment
Article 1: It may become evident that an elected official isn't making decisions based on the results of the opinon polls.

Are the rest of us elected officials risking impeachment by aknowledging Civanator as governor of Ameri? After all, if boycotting is the will of the people as shown by this poll then we are ignoring a citizen poll by not taking part in the boycott...

 

[disorganizer]

well, the cabinet already voted. the poll is not finished, so no poll is there they could follow. no impeachment.
the council-poll should not be finished before the rest of the cabinet voted. if they vote AFTER it finished, they maybe fall in Section J.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by disorganizer
well, the cabinet already voted. the poll is not finished, so no poll is there they could follow. no impeachment.
the council-poll should not be finished before the rest of the cabinet voted. if they vote AFTER it finished, they maybe fall in Section J.

What do you mean *maybe*? Are Rain and I to be the only ones held to the letter of the law?

BTW, if the cabinet already voted before the citizen poll how can they be *making decisions based on the results of the opinion polls*? It is not fair for you to apply the letter of the law to me and then not to others.

 

[Rain]

There is a perhaps a more subtle issue here. Certainly polls for purposes of determing the vote of at large members were not intended to be binding on anyone but the at large members.

The broader issue that has been raised, that of voting by other cabinet members in accordance with the opinion of citizens is one perhaps that is implied by the insistence on taking matters of "importance" (quotated because i think this is an undefinable quantity) to the citizens. This is i think the basis for some of the arguements being raised.

I think all would agree that a matter of "importance" should be decided on citizen opinion where such opinion is known based on the arguments that have been put forward by the various debaters. The logical extension of that arguement is that at large polls should determine the outcome of any cabinet vote. Yet, I am not certain that extension would find broad acceptance. This simply illustrates to me the contradictory positions of certain debaters. Clearly, this particular poll is not open to as simple an interpretation as most because of its nature.

It seems to me that the streams of thought on this essentially divide into

1) all issues whould be decided by citizen polls
2) issues should be decided by citizen polls when feasible
3) the cabinet acts as a proxy for the citizens

Given that 1) while ideal is never fully compatible with playability and (3) denies any role for the citizenry, the pragamatic result is (2) with the cabinet acting as proxy when (1) is not feasible.

Objectively we should strive toward (1) whenever possible. The difficulty develops in defining "feasibilty" and who determines this.
Since an appeal to the citizenry is not by defintion immediately available then the goal should be to establish the broadest base of support for the decision in keeping with the spirit of (1). Therefore such decisions should be made by cabinet vote which is a broader basis than the decision of any one executive member and that cabnet vote should to the degree possible be influenced by what evidence (if any) is available regarding citizen opinion.

I hope that makes sense - it is in essence what i feel is the spirit and intent of the constitution.

 

[Rain]

I will also acknowledge that poll may be open too long. My intent was to allow as many citizens as possible to reply since i have found that short polls will inevitably be skewed by cabinet votes since they are most aware of new polls. By the same token I have noticed that cabinet votes are often decided before it is feasible for an at large councillor to reasonably sample public opinion. If the goal is to accurately reflect citizen opinion then it is not reasonable to play 2 turns a week in my opinion.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Rain
There is a perhaps a more subtle issue here. Certainly polls for purposes of determing the vote of at large members were not intended to be binding on anyone but the at large members.

...

I hope that makes sense - it is in essence what i feel is the spirit and intent of the constitution.

I think the spirit of the constitution is that issues will be discussed and polled *before* they reach the cabinet vote stage. I doubt the at-large seats were installed so we'd have someone polling citizens *after* a cabinet vote already began! I'm afraid I don't get the subtlety here. If the spirit of the constitution is that the government must implement the wishes of the citizens then why wouldn't ANY poll that tells us what the citizens want not be binding? We must decide if we're going to be black and white about this or grey. Either all polls are binding or some are and some aren't. Once we decide some aren't then we'd best be careful about prosecuting someone for not following a poll whatever form the poll is in.

Finally, if we are going to debate the spirit of the constitution then we should also be careful about judging someone based solely on the letter of the constitution.

 

[Rain]

You have taken the last line out of context - it applied to the the statement of principles i made.

further to quote you:

"I'm afraid I don't get the subtlety here. If the spirit of the constitution is that the government must implement the wishes of the citizens then why wouldn't ANY poll that tells us what the citizens want not be binding?"
------------------

Generally i agree with this in a broad sense assuming its a valid poll with a clear direction INTENDED to elicit citizen opinion for the purpose of directing that vote for all cabinet members. Since it is not broadly assumed at present that at-large polls for the purposes of determing councilor actions are to be broadly binding, i woull not assume that they are binding except in a moral sense and then only IF they demonstrate a clear direction.

Obviously a vote of protest is intended to censure. Morally it might be deemed approriate for this censure to assume a broad direction, but i do not seem how it could be deemed legally binding on the other cabinet members since the poll was not assumed by the citizenry to be broadly binding when they voted.

With respect to the spirit vs the letter, i do not see how they are contradictory in this matter.

To address your comment on timing I do not see what that has to do the issue. Eyrie opened both threads with 26 minutes of each other! To suggest i could poll the citizens in 26 minutes is the height of cynicism.

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by Rain

To address your comment on timing I do not see what that has to do the issue. Eyrie opened both threads with 26 minutes of each other! To suggest i could poll the citizens in 26 minutes is the height of cynicism.

Sorry, I was just following the only directives we have in place to resolve the situation of a missing governor. Again, I was quite surprised to discover the results of that poll. Since the president was available to offer an appointment, I had no reason to delay the cabinet poll.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Rain
To address your comment on timing I do not see what that has to do the issue. Eyrie opened both threads with 26 minutes of each other! To suggest i could poll the citizens in 26 minutes is the height of cynicism.

No, I don't mean to suggest that you be able to poll the citizens in 26 minutes. What I was saying was the at-large council members were added to ensure at least two cabinet votes would be made based on the wishes of the citizens. I don't think these positions were created with the idea that the at-large members would be polling the citizens after a cabinet vote began. I think the intent was for discussion by citizens, then a citizen poll, then a cabinet vote with the at-large members voting with the poll results.

The very fact that situations such as this arise (over and over again it seems) in the demo game shows that our constitution is lacking. It is not a time tested document. It has flaws and we should be working to remove those flaws rather than arguing about whether someone violated a flawed rule.