DG4 Discussion - Const: Article I
- Thread starter zorven
- Start date
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
This one is a keeper 
.
.
I think we should probably retain our ratification process as far as the citizens go, but I think we should decide whether or not to keep the senate. If we keep it, we should add provisions in the CoL for at-large senators so that we have at least three senators at all times (I don't like the concept of one senator being able to unilaterally veto an amendment). Perhaps we should remove this power from the Senate altogether, given that an amendment can pass 29-2 in the Congress but fail because it was rejected 2-1 in the Senate, even with three senators.
Donovan Zoi
The Return
This one will require some discussion, and may not be resolved until we define our Legislature in Article E.
Some questions:
- If we do remove the Senate from this process, should we raise the bar for approval by the citizenry? It's currently a simple majority, but should we raise it to 60%? Or 2/3rds?
We shouldn't make it too easy to change our Constitution.
- Do we want to base our approval majority on a fixed "Full Census" as described here? Or should the results be based on the actual number of citizens participating in the poll?
- Do we need both an active census and a full census defined in our Constitution? What would they be used for in our CoL?
Some questions:
- If we do remove the Senate from this process, should we raise the bar for approval by the citizenry? It's currently a simple majority, but should we raise it to 60%? Or 2/3rds?
We shouldn't make it too easy to change our Constitution.
- Do we want to base our approval majority on a fixed "Full Census" as described here? Or should the results be based on the actual number of citizens participating in the poll?
- Do we need both an active census and a full census defined in our Constitution? What would they be used for in our CoL?
zorven
12,000 Suns
- Joined
- May 13, 2003
- Messages
- 1,964
In response to DZ's questions.
1) We should definetely make changing the constitution require more than a simple majority. 2/3 sounds goo.d
2) I think basing it off of the full census would make more sense. Otherwise we run the risk of very few of the active voters having a greater influence than intended.
3) I don't have much background here, but I thought the full census would be used for constitutional votes, and the active census used for CoL votes if the CoL votes required other than simple majority of votes in the poll.
1) We should definetely make changing the constitution require more than a simple majority. 2/3 sounds goo.d
2) I think basing it off of the full census would make more sense. Otherwise we run the risk of very few of the active voters having a greater influence than intended.
3) I don't have much background here, but I thought the full census would be used for constitutional votes, and the active census used for CoL votes if the CoL votes required other than simple majority of votes in the poll.
I'll respond to them as well:
1. I don't think we should raise the bar for participation in the poll even if we do eliminate the Senate. It would be hard enough to get the necessary number of people (half of the ones that voted in the Presidential election) to vote and then to vote yes. I think it would be overkill to require more than that to vote in favor, and it would make constitutional amendment almost impossible. This assumes, however, that we're doing this based on the full census like we have done in the past demogames; if we're not basing it on the census, then raising the majority needed for ratification to 3/5 or 2/3 sounds like a good idea.
2. I think we should base it on the full census like it has been in previous demogames.
3. Last demogame, the active census was somewhat of a waste as it was never used. However, we may decide to incorporate it into quorums for CoL and possibly CoS amendments.
1. I don't think we should raise the bar for participation in the poll even if we do eliminate the Senate. It would be hard enough to get the necessary number of people (half of the ones that voted in the Presidential election) to vote and then to vote yes. I think it would be overkill to require more than that to vote in favor, and it would make constitutional amendment almost impossible. This assumes, however, that we're doing this based on the full census like we have done in the past demogames; if we're not basing it on the census, then raising the majority needed for ratification to 3/5 or 2/3 sounds like a good idea.
2. I think we should base it on the full census like it has been in previous demogames.
3. Last demogame, the active census was somewhat of a waste as it was never used. However, we may decide to incorporate it into quorums for CoL and possibly CoS amendments.
I am against the general philosophy that the constitution needs to be difficult to change, and even more so against giving a small number of people (34% of the senate to be specific) the power to veto amendments. A simple majority of the people voting in the amendment poll, with an active census represented, would be enough for me.
FortyJ
Deity
We may wish to table this discussion until after the structure of the government is finalized.
Nonetheless, we should poll a number of options once we decide to move forward on this topic.
Nonetheless, we should poll a number of options once we decide to move forward on this topic.
- Status quo
- Different Percentages
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Changing the Constitution should be a difficult task. Given our size, I think a 2/3 majority of votes, census at 2/3 of full census, no Senate ratification would work.
The CoL should be much easier to change (single majority, census at 1/2 of Full Census).
I think we can remove the Active Census numbers.
-- Ravensfire
The CoL should be much easier to change (single majority, census at 1/2 of Full Census).
I think we can remove the Active Census numbers.
-- Ravensfire
I actually think that the Constitution should be difficult to change, and that we should keep the Senate in the process. Keep the percentage for the Senate to ratify 67% if we're going to elect Senators-at-Large, but lower it to 51% if we're sticking to the Senate being made up of Governors.
And NEVER USE the full census. The only time we'll ever be able to meet it is in Term 1, and probably not even then.
And NEVER USE the full census. The only time we'll ever be able to meet it is in Term 1, and probably not even then.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
The census of the DG population changes every term. basing our amendment changes on the most current census only makes sense. But I have seen candidates bring in voters they have recruited, for the main purpose of getting elected, that never again appear in the DG. I've seen over 50 votes on a Presidential election or two or three. That just goes to show how crooked our election system can be...but that's another story.
I personally think that Constitutional ammendments should require 2/3 of the active census, and that the Senate ratification should be dropped.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
In answering your questions, DZ ~
1. As stated above, 2/3 of the Active Census should be required for a Constitutional amendment.
2. Use the Active Census, as achieving the "Full Census" may be unattainable when candidate bring in voters from Antartica to vote for them.
These 50+ vote Presidential elections are outrageous. We have what? 20 - 25 active citizens?3. Yes, both Full and Active Census' should be kept by the Judicial system in the first post for that department every term.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
Well, what if we modify the levels of full and active census, to make them more "relevant"
Full: Average of vote totals in most recent election cycle
Active: 2/3 of median vote total in most recent election cycle
Note, median vs mean is intentional here.
-- Ravensfire
Full: Average of vote totals in most recent election cycle
Active: 2/3 of median vote total in most recent election cycle
Note, median vs mean is intentional here.
-- Ravensfire
GenMarshall
High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent
I was looking over the 2/3rds of the median vote totals. Sometimes that can result in a descimal point. Are we going to be rounding up or down.
Rounding up: 4.5 becomes 5
Rounding down: 5.5 becomes 5
Assume we are rounding up, because if we rounded down we would have less than 2/3.
ravensfire
Member of the Opposition
CG,
It is impossible for the median of a set of whole numbers to be anything other than a whole number. I think you've confused mean with median.
[stat mode]
Here's an example. The set of numbers (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 25).
Mean: (3+4+5+6+8+20) / 6 = 8.5
Median: 5 (I was taught in a even-numbered set, to take the number left of the mid-point).
The median is not the average. It is the number in the middle of the set listed in ascending order. It tends to reduce the impact of outliers - see the example above. The number 25 is well above the norm, and this causes the mean to be pulled higher. The median is more towards the general range of numbers.
[/stat mode]
Now, assuming you mean the mean, you simply pick one and remain constant. This would go in the book where the calculation for the census is detailed.
-- Ravensfire
It is impossible for the median of a set of whole numbers to be anything other than a whole number. I think you've confused mean with median.
[stat mode]
Here's an example. The set of numbers (3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 25).
Mean: (3+4+5+6+8+20) / 6 = 8.5
Median: 5 (I was taught in a even-numbered set, to take the number left of the mid-point).
The median is not the average. It is the number in the middle of the set listed in ascending order. It tends to reduce the impact of outliers - see the example above. The number 25 is well above the norm, and this causes the mean to be pulled higher. The median is more towards the general range of numbers.
[/stat mode]
Now, assuming you mean the mean, you simply pick one and remain constant. This would go in the book where the calculation for the census is detailed.
-- Ravensfire
That is debatable, I was taught to take two numbers closest to the mid-point and average them to get the median in an even-numbered set. Using your set as an example:
The median of (3,4,5,6,8,20) = 5.5
The median of (3,4,5,6,8,20) = 5.5
FortyJ
Deity
Well, we could always do away with the secret ballot and have everyone declare their votes via post in the appropriate election thread. Of course, this will never happen because certain individuals don't want to have to defend their voting record.
I personally wouldn't really mind that, but the less active users may be less inclined to post their vote than the more active ones, and as such it may disenfranchise the lurkers to some degree.
