DG4 Discussion - Const: Article I

[DaveShack]

I would like to propose a new compromise. I object very strongly to use of the generally-termed 'full census' (maximum vote count in the last election) for constitutional amendments. Instead, let's just define the census (no modifier) as the average of the vote totals of the current term's contested elections, rounded up.

This keeps one election result which is way out of character from having a huge effect. If a relatively accurate measurement of active participants is used, I'm willing (just barely) to accept requiring a supermajority to pass constitutional amendments.

 

[donsig]

This stuff really ticks me off reading it after a stressful day at work. I used to participateinthe demo game to relieve stress not add more upon myself!

Listen up people: why do we need more than one census? We could just use one census figure and then use bars of different heights for what is needed to change the constitution and CoL. For example, the census is the average of the votes in the last elections, it takes a majority of the census to vote yes to change the CoL and three fourths to vote yes to change the constitution, or something along these lines.

Can't we make this simple? Let's drop the crap about *active* players. Since no one wants to seriously consider open ballots we will never know how many active players we have anyway.

 

[ravensfire]

donsig,

No offense, but you yourself proposed (straight from DG3 in fact) dual census levels. As that has been the gist of nearly every proposal given in this thread, the stress in your post is a bit much.

On to the suggestion...
Using one census will make things easier, and really didn't cross my mind. Too radical for me I guess! I'm leery of being able to change the Constitution easily though. If we want to amend it, I want there to be overwhelming support for the proposal. Look at DG3, I proposed an Amendment that created a CoC. It was correctly pointed out, during polling, that it belonged in the CoL, not the Con. It took only a few people to kill that proposal. That's how it SHOULD be for the Constitution.


So, exactly what are either of you proposing?

-- Ravesfire

 

[Cyc]

Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

 

[Strider]

I believe that the election polls are a bad way to determine the census. From my experience (and correct me if it's changed) the election polls get an average of 10 more votes than the normal polls taken in the polls forum. Where those 10 go, no one has yet to figure out, but it may be better to post a census poll (in the polls forum) when elections start. Other than that a 2/3rds majority will work fine.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire
donsig,

No offense, but you yourself proposed (straight from DG3 in fact) dual census levels. As that has been the gist of nearly every proposal given in this thread, the stress in your post is a bit much.

On to the suggestion...
Using one census will make things easier, and really didn't cross my mind. Too radical for me I guess! I'm leery of being able to change the Constitution easily though. If we want to amend it, I want there to be overwhelming support for the proposal. Look at DG3, I proposed an Amendment that created a CoC. It was correctly pointed out, during polling, that it belonged in the CoL, not the Con. It took only a few people to kill that proposal. That's how it SHOULD be for the Constitution.


So, exactly what are either of you proposing?

-- Ravesfire

I only proposed it so we could keep the DG3 constitution intact. It is a great framework that evolved over three demogames and I am quite disgusted by the trashing it is taking for DG4. As a historical note I have always campaigned to make the constitution difficult to check. Way back when this subject first came up (DG1) I lobbied for a census that would include all participants. I definded that as the number of votes in our presidential election since that always showed the highest participation. Some didn't like that for varying reasons and the compromise dual census was born.

What are we proposing? I am proposing that we just carry over the DG3 article and go on with life. Once again, it all boils down to making a flipping decision. How difficult do we want it to be to change the constitution? Of course no one here wants to make any decisions...

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

Drop the part about the CoS and I would vote for this one. I am leery of the phrase *a majority of those voting must be achieved*. Could we not define what it takes to change the CoS in either the CoL or CoS?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
Proposal:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. To alter the CoL, a majority of the census must be achieved in affirmative votes. To alter the Cos, a majority of those voting must be achieved.

Minimun poll length = 5 days.

Look good to me. I do agree that we should define how to change the CoL and CoS in those books, not the Con.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

New Proposal (scratch the old one):

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc
New Proposal (scratch the old one):

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. All fractions shall be dropped

Changes in red- let's ensure that we are only counting elections where more than one citizen is running. And no, abstain doesn't count until they register! I also want to avoid a possible JR over fractions - we probably will have at least one vote where that will matter.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in anyway, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

Changes in red- let's ensure that we are only counting elections where more than one citizen is running. And no, abstain doesn't count until they register! I also want to avoid a possible JR over fractions - we probably will have at least one vote where that will matter.

-- Ravensfire

Fine by me. Let's ratify this one.

 

[DaveShack]

Typo: "any way" is two words.

As written, it means "pass if yes votes >= floor(census*.66)" without regard to no or abstain votes, is this what you want?

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by DaveShack
Typo: "any way" is two words.

As written, it means "pass if yes votes >= floor(census*.66)" without regard to no or abstain votes, is this what you want?

Thanks for the correction!

For me, yes, that is what I want. If the census is 26, there must be 17 or more affirmative votes to amend the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Yes, thank you, DS for the correction.

2/3's of the census having voted affirmative is what I meant also. Ravensfire's numbers are correct.

 

[DaveShack]

Sorry, my point was what if there are more no votes than yes, but the yes votes exceed 2/3 of census. I agree with the result you are attempting to get, but don't want to leave a nasty loophole.

 

[Cyc]

Correct again, DS. Although it is highly unlikely.

How about this?

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for the Demogame. To alter this Constitution in any way, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

One small thing and I think we have it:

Article I ~ The average number of vote totals from each contested election poll in the most recent elections shall constitute the census for that term. To alter this Constitution in any way, two-thirds of the current census must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change. All fractions shall be dropped.

I can post a ratification poll for this tomorrow afternoon.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
One small thing and I think we have it:



I can post a ratification poll for this tomorrow afternoon.

Like the change - nice loophole catch. Looking forward to the poll!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Ratification poll has been posted. Please vote here:

Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article I

 

[ravensfire]

As it appears this article has a chance of failing ratification - how should it be fixed. I hope to see all the no votes posting a fix to this one.

-- Ravensfire