FortyJ
Deity
... and this would be bad because...?
DG4 Discussion - Const: Article I
- Thread starter zorven
- Start date
FortyJ
Deity
sorry boots, but this is wrong. To disfranchise (or disenfranchise) someone, you must actually deprive that individual of the right to vote. Simply changing the method from a secret ballot to a open one cannot do that.
Okay, I'll admit that my usage of the word disenfranchise was a bit erroneous, but the intent is clear. Anyway, I'm rather neutral on this topic; it doesn't really matter to me whether we do it by secret ballot or open post.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
I would support open ballots in the elections. Those of us that truly wanted to vote would do so. Plus if a President was elected by 25 people we have never heard from, we would know that too.
Edit:But I still stand by the statement I made in post #12 of this thread.
Edit:But I still stand by the statement I made in post #12 of this thread.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
With apologies to Samuel Clemons,
"There are lies, damn lies, and statisticians!"
Gotta love it! Either approach will work great, we just need to mention it. I can handle the averaging the two numbers.
I would also suggest that, when averaging and w/ the median, we simply drop all fractions. Simple, easy, and does keep the levels just slightly lower.
-- Ravensfire
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Well, we do have several members that started as pure lurkers, then started to vote in polls, then started to spout off in threads. Next thing you know - someone like me is around!
I wouldn't mind a more definitive method of voting that has less of a chance of "irregularities". We shouldn't, however, force citizens to make their votes public. Some people (me!) do sometimes argue various sides of various issues to make sure all factors are considered, and all viewpoints made known. I've also been known to reflect and vote differently from my initial stated preference.
Sigh - as if "Legal Instructions" isn't going to be enough of a debate. This too could become involved.
-- Ravensfire
Bill_in_PDX
Grumpy Submariner
I fully agree with Cyc's position.
The Constitution should require a lot of effort to change. The CoL should be simple majority
donsig
Low level intermediary
It could very well be done if we write a rule or law making it so. Haven't you ever seen the Ten commandments? So let it be written. So let it be done!
(BTW - I am all for doing away with the secret ballot.)Back to the topic at hand. Someone wondered what the census(es) could be used for. I realize some have answered this but I would add that in addition to setting the bar for passing laws and constitutional amendments the census can be used to set an appropriate quorum for polls, if we decide we need one. Yes, ravensfire, this could become involved. Your
is no where near as mine on this subject since I've been involved in these same debates since DG1! There is nothing new in this thread, it's all been talked about before. (sigh)I am in favor of making the constitution difficult to change and the code of laws not so difficult to change. I am also in favor of eliminating the Senate confirmation / veto of amendments.
I suggest we take a lesson from the DG3 constitution (a venerable document) and only worry here about specifying what will be needed to change the constitution. We can specify the CoL amendment process in the CoL.
Here is my proposed wording for this article:
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the most recent contested national elections shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress). A majority of the Congress shall be required to amend the constitution
Donovan Zoi
The Return
A majority of the Full census.....I believe that would work. 
I like this wording; what does everyone else think?
I have an announcement to make regarding the Open Vote. It quite simply won't happen. I will open a thread tomorrow giving my reasoning, because I don't want to threadjack this discussion. Sorry for the suspense, but I am calling it a night.
I like this wording; what does everyone else think?I have an announcement to make regarding the Open Vote. It quite simply won't happen. I will open a thread tomorrow giving my reasoning, because I don't want to threadjack this discussion. Sorry for the suspense, but I am calling it a night.
How about this, stated in two parts since different people may agree with different parts... Reasoning for the changes is, on the first part it clarifies that exactly one term's worth of elections (the current one) is being counted, and on the second part I strongly believe that a poll with more yes votes than no should pass as long as the number of votes is not trivially low.
The average of the number of votes cast in each of the contested national elections for the current term shall constitute an active census of citizens. The highest vote total of these elections shall constitute a full census (the Congress).
A majority of those voting, with a minimum total votes cast equal to or greater than a majority of the Congress, shall be required to amend the constitution
I would also agree to all of the active census in place of a majority of Congress in part 2 above. What I don't want to see is a full census of 50 and active census of 25, requiring 26 yes votes to pass an amendment when there are really only 25 active players.
If it weren't so difficult to calculate, I'd propose an actual measurement of how many people are actively contributing, such as "The active census is defined as the number of people who have posted substantial material (i.e. more than a 'me too' type post) in the last 14 days."
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
donsig,
I like the proposal - simple and still makes it difficult to alter the constitution, especially for a controversial proposal. As it has been brought up, I would suggest adding to the active census that all fractions are dropped.
I also quite agree about the CoL.
-- Ravensfire
I like the proposal - simple and still makes it difficult to alter the constitution, especially for a controversial proposal. As it has been brought up, I would suggest adding to the active census that all fractions are dropped.
I also quite agree about the CoL.
-- Ravensfire
donsig
Low level intermediary
I for one think the constitution should be difficult to amend. Using the figures cited above it would take only 14 yes votes (with 12 other votes) to amend the constitution. I would lso point out that by the reasoning above (full census of 50 but only 26 active players) it would seem impossible to amend the consitution either way since both methods require at least 26 votes.
Anyone have any better ideas for doing the census?
Donovan Zoi
The Return
Apparently not, or maybe this thought was buried with the forum move. Let's pick up here where we left off. Thanks!
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Alrighty then!
We have two discussions, linked together. Here's another series of proposals to add to the list
First, how many census levels and how should they be determined.
2 census levels - full and active.
Full: 2/3 the highest number of votes in any election poll in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.
Active: Average number of votes in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.
Second, what should be required to amend the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 super majority of all votes cast, with a minimum vote level of the full census, all fractions to be dropped.
The bar to amend the Constitution is pretty high - you need good participation, and achieving a supermajority is not simple.
-- Ravensfire
We have two discussions, linked together. Here's another series of proposals to add to the list
First, how many census levels and how should they be determined.
2 census levels - full and active.
Full: 2/3 the highest number of votes in any election poll in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.
Active: Average number of votes in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle, dropping all fractions.
Second, what should be required to amend the Constitution.
Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 super majority of all votes cast, with a minimum vote level of the full census, all fractions to be dropped.
The bar to amend the Constitution is pretty high - you need good participation, and achieving a supermajority is not simple.
-- Ravensfire
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Yeah, me too!
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Originally posted by Cyc
Yeah, me too!
Ahh, so those that passively participate (vote in polls only) don't count? Even if we could determine the "active" number, I would be strongly against it.
-- Ravensfire
Cyc
Looking for the door...
Yeah, me too!
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Cyc = AOL user!
just couldn't resist that!
-- Ravensfire
just couldn't resist that!-- Ravensfire
Sarevok
Civ3 Scenario Creator
I like it, very good idea.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
As there hasn't been any activity here for a bit, I'll restate my last idea to bump this.
I. The average number of votes, in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Active Census. 2/3 of the highest number of votes in any single election of the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Full Census. All fractions shall be dropped from the Active and Full Census. Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 supermajority of all votes cast with a quorum level of the Full Census.
Keeping the ball rolling ...
-- Ravensfire
I. The average number of votes, in all contested election polls in the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Active Census. 2/3 of the highest number of votes in any single election of the most recent election cycle shall be deemed the Full Census. All fractions shall be dropped from the Active and Full Census. Amending the Constitution shall require a 2/3 supermajority of all votes cast with a quorum level of the Full Census.
Keeping the ball rolling ...
-- Ravensfire
