Constitution Poll - Polls, Amendments, and Quorum

[Chieftess]

Do you approve of this suggestion for the section of the constitution? If this passes, it will go into a formal writing stage. As there was only 1 general proposal, it will be a "Do you accept?" poll. Discussion was here.

1. All polls shall be public except those types of polls which are specifically designated by law as being required to be private.
2. The following types of polls, which have the purpose of choosing and/or judging individuals, shall be private.
a. Elections
b. Polls confirming or denying appointments
c. Polls to determine guilt or innocence.
d. Polls to determine sentencing
3. Only registered citizens are authorized to vote in polls. The results of public polls may be checked against the citizen registry, and votes by people who are not registered may be deducted from the poll results. Any citizen may challenge the result of a private poll by requesting the moderators to verify citizenship of all persons voting, and adjust the vote totals accordingly.

4. Amendments to the constitution require (a 2/3 majority of all votes cast), or (a simple majority of all votes cast and a number of votes cast more than 60% of the census). The census is the lesser of the average number of votes cast for all offices in the most recent election, or 80% of the number of votes cast in the most recent ratification vote, or 80% of the votes cast in a quorum vote called for the purpose of establishing a true census.

Census:
-- DG5: census was average number of votes in contested elections

Quorum:
-- DG5: 2/3 of census for Constitution
-- DG5: 37% of census for CoL

Approval:
-- DG5: 67% of non-abstain votes must approve
-- DG5: 55% of votes must approve

 

[DaveShack]

Thank you for starting this poll, it is indeed the first one we should work on.

The quote in the 1st post took away all the formatting. For the benefit of the voters, here is a formatted version.

1. All polls shall be public except those types of polls which are specifically designated by law as being required to be private.
2. The following types of polls, which have the purpose of choosing and/or judging individuals, shall be private.
   • Elections
   • Polls confirming or denying appointments
   • Polls to determine guilt or innocence.
   • Polls to determine sentencing
3. Only registered citizens are authorized to vote in polls. The results of public polls may be checked against the citizen registry, and votes by people who are not registered may be deducted from the poll results. Any citizen may challenge the result of a private poll by requesting the moderators to verify citizenship of all persons voting, and adjust the vote totals accordingly.
   
4. Amendments to the constitution require (a 2/3 majority of all votes cast), or (a simple majority of all votes cast and a number of votes cast more than 60% of the census). The census is the lesser of the average number of votes cast for all offices in the most recent election, or 80% of the number of votes cast in the most recent ratification vote, or 80% of the votes cast in a quorum vote called for the purpose of establishing a true census.

background information
Census:
-- DG5: census was average number of votes in contested elections

Quorum:
-- DG5: 2/3 of census for Constitution
-- DG5: 37% of census for CoL

Approval:
-- DG5: 67% of non-abstain votes must approve
-- DG5: 55% of votes must approve

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I will accept this as a starting point, but strongly disagree with allowing the Constitution to be changed by a simple majority vote, no matter how many citizens participate. If we have a contentious issue that strongly divides the nation (let's say spot votes in the chat), the minority in a 51-49% vote would be disenfranchised.

But we can figure this out in the formal writing stage. I'll vote YES.

 

[Black_Hole]

even though we know this applies to CCs:

Polls to determine guilt or innocence.
Polls to determine sentencing

Shouldnt we say something like:

Polls to determine guilt or innocence in a Citizen Complaint.
Polls to determine sentencing in a Citizen Complaint.

also on the constitution ratifacation it should be 2/3 majority and a majority of the census voting... not either... the constitution shouldnt be easy to change at all

edit: cross posted with DZ, but I am voting no.
I believe what we are doing now is exactly what will be in the formal writing stage.

 

[MOTH]

I voted no on the sole issue of Public vs Private polls. I could accept this for Elected Officialls, but private citizens should be able to post either type at their own choice.

 

[DaveShack]

I voted no on the sole issue of Public vs Private polls. I could accept this for Elected Officialls, but private citizens should be able to post either type at their own choice.

I thought that we came to closure during discussion that this would apply to any poll which is binding, and not to purely informational polls. Please be sure to bring this up when we do the formal language phase. I'll try to remember, if I even have the free time to be driving it then, but its easier if you raise it yourself to keep us honest.

 

[DaveShack]

I will accept this as a starting point, but strongly disagree with allowing the Constitution to be changed by a simple majority vote, no matter how many citizens participate. If we have a contentious issue that strongly divides the nation (let's say spot votes in the chat), the minority in a 51-49% vote would be disenfranchised.

Thanks, that gives me a good way to phase my argument in favor of allowing amendments with a simple majority.

With a higher approval requirement, for example the 2/3 which has been used in the past, and with high quorum levels, it is the majority who get disenfranchised, because their choice is not followed. There is nothing more aggravating than having 83% approval for a change but falling one vote short of the quorum. Well, the situation in the U.S. Senate where one member can tie something up by refusing to stop debating it is close.

The parallel between this environment and real constitutions is a bogus argument. There is a difference between rules for a game which is over in less than a year and laws in RL which are expected to last RL centuries.

But, as you say it can still be debated during final discussions.

 

[blackheart]

Thanks, that gives me a good way to phase my argument in favor of allowing amendments with a simple majority.

With a higher approval requirement, for example the 2/3 which has been used in the past, and with high quorum levels, it is the majority who get disenfranchised, because their choice is not followed. There is nothing more aggravating than having 83% approval for a change but falling one vote short of the quorum. Well, the situation in the U.S. Senate where one member can tie something up by refusing to stop debating it is close.

The parallel between this environment and real constitutions is a bogus argument. There is a difference between rules for a game which is over in less than a year and laws in RL which are expected to last RL centuries.

But, as you say it can still be debated during final discussions.

No more filibustering tactics can be used then

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Thanks, that gives me a good way to phase my argument in favor of allowing amendments with a simple majority.

With a higher approval requirement, for example the 2/3 which has been used in the past, and with high quorum levels, it is the majority who get disenfranchised, because their choice is not followed. There is nothing more aggravating than having 83% approval for a change but falling one vote short of the quorum. Well, the situation in the U.S. Senate where one member can tie something up by refusing to stop debating it is close.

The parallel between this environment and real constitutions is a bogus argument. There is a difference between rules for a game which is over in less than a year and laws in RL which are expected to last RL centuries.

But, as you say it can still be debated during final discussions.

Funny, Dave, but I never mentioned RL in my argument.

The 2/3 majority should not be messed with, and lowering the quorum to 50% of the census should take care of the scenario you mentioned. As far as the Constitution goes, a 17-2 outcome beats a 29-28 vote when it comes to representing the people.

Remember, we want a Constitution that best represents our entire people. We cannot have that if we let a slim majority dictate how they should be represented. But there I go, digressing into RL again..............

 

[DaveShack]

Funny, Dave, but I never mentioned RL in my argument.

Oops, got my streams crossed, that was probably a debate in a previous virtual life, maybe DG5 setup?

 

[ravensfire]

Strongly disagree.

First problem - this is one poll trying to decide two seperate issues. Where's that blasted PSC when we need it? Should have been two seperate polls, one for polls, one for amendments.

Second problem - this poll is skipping the decision phase. Where are the other options provided? The poll author dictated the choice, removing the opportunity for people to make a choice on this. A better approach would have been to poll the various options, with the proposal receiving the highest vote totals becoming the approved method.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Chieftess]

Well, this poll got 2/3 of the vote exactly. Now we can start polling other amendments. Remember that we can even amend this poll later, or, post that all turnchat instructions must have discussions and polls. No need to be redundant.