Constitutional Discussion: Important Aspects to Cover

[DaveShack]

I'd like to make a few small modifications to some of the simple stuff in past constitutions, based on areas which have caused us unnecessary heartburn.

Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. No rule shall be valid that contradicts these Articles, excepting an amendment specifically tasked to do so.
​

The above text causes us problems because it becomes difficult to fix problems in the topmost set of rules which should logically be easy to fix. The critical sentence which gets us into trouble is the last sentence.

What we really want to have is the constitution containing general principles which can be clarified by more specific lower laws. Sometimes we do a good job of this by writing broadly generic constitution articles, and sometimes we don't do as well and write them so tightly that a lower form of law cannot possibly clarify without contradicting.

Governing rules shall consist of these Articles of the Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented. The rule most relevant to a given subject shall take precedence.
​

What I'm trying to avoid, in terms of a concrete hypothetical situation:

Con: all elected positions have a term of one calendar month
CoL: elected positions which become vacant in the first week of the month to be filled by special election

Old language (CoL can't contradict Con) -- CoL would be thrown out, special elections are precluded by the calendar month language.
New language (More specific overrides more general) -- CoL can allow special elections, because it is more relevant to the specific situation.

Hope you're not too confused after that -- comments please?

 

[ravensfire]

DaveShack,

With that rule, why have different books? Just put everything into one set.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Knightlancer]

I agree have the Constitution fairly broadly worded on most things, and have a lower set of 'Laws, Bulls, and Executive Orders' to define the Constitution.
These need to be separate groups because the Constitution should rarely be changed but the lower can be changed by any branch with the consent of the people. I think the lower one should be written as we go along and just start with the Constitution.

I also favor Awolf's Idea on a three part main Executive instead of one (the presidential system).
-KL

 

[DaveShack]

With that rule, why have different books? Just put everything into one set.

There is still a reason to have two or more books. The generic stuff is also primarily unchanging. Instead of having to reinvent the wheel in 6-8 months when the first Civ4 DG finishes, we can keep the top level constitution and make changes to the lower law only, if necessary.

 

[ravensfire]

There is still a reason to have two or more books. The generic stuff is also primarily unchanging. Instead of having to reinvent the wheel in 6-8 months when the first Civ4 DG finishes, we can keep the top level constitution and make changes to the lower law only, if necessary.

And thus make the top level completely irrelevant. What use is something that under your proposal? None.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

And thus make the top level completely irrelevant. What use is something that under your proposal? None.

I'm not quite sure I understand exactly what you mean, nor if you understand what I'm trying to say. Perhaps my example was too small to be useful.

Suppose an article on elections has several main points:

1. Calendar month terms
2. Private polls
3. Nominations start 8 days before start of term
4. Elections start 4 days before start of term and run for a minimum of 3 days
5. Highest vote getter wins regardless of whether its a majority
6. Runoff election in case of ties lasting 2 days

With my proposed system, a specific demogame (let's say Civ4 DG2) can keep the constitution as is and specify a change in a lower form of law, for example:

1. Terms lasting 40 turns

This gains us a lot. Instead of debating and rewriting the whole constitution for a period of weeks to possibly months, we pass a single law changing the structure to turns, and we start playing. What's even better, we haven't changed the constitution itself! We can make the lower level law sunset after 2 terms and revert to calendar automatically. The next DG reverts to calendar automatically, without having to change the constitution again.

Ok, so I'll grant you the point, if we go totally and override every single constitutional point in a lower form of law, then the constitution itself has no meaning. I will venture to say that such an extreme outcome is pretty unlikely, and the benefit of being able to tinker with things for the 2nd game and go back to the base rules for the 3rd game outweigh the risk of that possibility.

Nonetheless, I would prefer that a high percentage of citizens understand this point and are willing to go along with it before trying to push it.

One more thing, think how fun it would be to be in the judiciary if you were allowed (and required) to decide which of many laws was the most relevant for a given question.

 

[Alighieri]

I would have to agree with DaveShack's proposal. Perhaps there should be a vote? That seems the logical way to solve things in a Democracy Game.

 

[DaveShack]

I would have to agree with DaveShack's proposal. Perhaps there should be a vote? That seems the logical way to solve things in a Democracy Game.

True enough, however we'll likely have a separate discussion on this issue before bringing it to a vote, to get some more ideas. There may be a very strong argument to keep the tested and RL-accurate structure of a supreme body of law which cannot be contradicted by lesser laws. OTOH the RL systems of law often touch life or death issues, or impacts on human rights which border on being worse than death, where this is a game that we can use to experiment if a majority of us so desires.

 

[ravensfire]

And you've completely destroyed the idea of the Constitution - a framework of laws and guidelines that are difficult the change.

With your idea, ANY concept can be overridden by simply making it more specific. That's nonsense.

The Constitution should provide the broad framework within any other laws work. The detail of those laws should never, ever override the Constitution. That's been working for the past demogames quite well.

Let's take your example again. A much, much easier way would be "Elections are to be held on a fixed cycle." (Hmm, DG3, anyone?) Now - what's required to change it to turn-based? A simple change to the Code of Laws section where the language about calendar based terms is. Simple and non-confusing.

The idea you're proposing will have TWO sections of laws dealing with elections, contradicting each other! That may be common in most countries (and most definitely in the US), but that's bad practice. The ruleset needs to be simple and easily defined. DG3 and DG7 are the best examples of that out there, with DG3 getting the nod because of the sheer simplicity and flexibility of that ruleset.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

The ruleset needs to be simple and easily defined. DG3 and DG7 are the best examples of that out there, with DG3 getting the nod because of the sheer simplicity and flexibility of that ruleset.

You might be right -- if we can keep unnecessarily limiting stuff out of the Constitution. Primarily we need to resist the urge to put pet projects into the top layer.

Making the constitution too thin also risks making it irrelevant. We don't get the potential benefit of a framework if all it means is shifting all the work into the next lower layers.

"Elections are to be held on a fixed cycle."

The word "fixed" is what would get us into trouble with this one, since turn based could be argued as being "variable". How about this?

Elections are to be held using a process defined by law.
​

 

[ravensfire]

You might be right -- if we can keep unnecessarily limiting stuff out of the Constitution. Primarily we need to resist the urge to put pet projects into the top layer.

Making the constitution too thin also risks making it irrelevant. We don't get the potential benefit of a framework if all it means is shifting all the work into the next lower layers.




The word "fixed" is what would get us into trouble with this one, since turn based could be argued as being "variable". How about this?

Elections are to be held using a process defined by law.

​

Perfect!

As much as possible, that's what the Constitution should be. It's a general description of our most important concepts and ideas. It's the aspects of the game that we want to always be there. Citizen rights, for example, we always want there, and to make sure that someone wanting to change them (say, limit the freedom of speech) faces an uphill battle.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Alphawolf]

* Officials / Leaders:

Based on Civ4's Advisors vs. New Ones​

Determine Roles for Each Official​

Deputy Workings: Runner Up vs. Chosen​

Appointed Positions​

Filling Vacant/Abandoned Positions​

* Government Structure:

Executive, Legislative, Judicial? vs. Something New? (define who goes in each branch)​

A Senate?*​

* Judicial Matters

Keep Same Positions (CJ, JA, PD?)*​

Work Out Matters on Amending Constitution​

Determine Process for JRs and CCs*​

* Standards:

Polling / Discussion Standards to keep Discussions / Polls orderly?​

Public vs. Private Polls​

Information Movement (make officials keep up to date info in their term thread in the Government Forum)​

Layout of the Constitution​

As per DaveShack's request this is my "Got It"
-the Wolf

 

[Ginger_Ale]

How about we work 1 'section' at a time? I think that would be easier to do it one by one than to have many going at one time. And that is a pretty large section too.

 

[Alphawolf]

How about we work 1 'section' at a time? I think that would be easier to do it one by one than to have many going at one time. And that is a pretty large section too.

I have no problem doing it one part at a time.
-the Wolf

 

[DaveShack]

As per DaveShack's request this is my "Got It"
-the Wolf

Umm, that looks like everything on the list!

Not that this is a problem of course... though if we each start with 1-2 then we can get 5-10 areas started.

Oh, guess I should post my "Got it". The area which grabs my attention the most is the roles of the offices, but frankly we should do that last so that rational decisions can be made based on people's experiences. At a minimum gotta at least slow down the "just use the advisors" mantra.

I'll start with "forms of law", the topic about how to divide rules into different layers.