Discussion on Law 1: Regulations relating to laws

I personally support the Judiciary reviewing all laws I think that is a good Idea,but that a poll for the law needs some sort of Yes quorom not necessarily a certain amount of people voting to make it binding but lets say 60% approval. my only concern is that people that strongly oppose a law may introduce leglislation to overturn it right after it is passed, maybe a person would have to petition that a law come up to vote( x number of users need to post to show their is support before it comes up for a vote) while this is probably not feasible or even relevant it's just my noob idea.
 
Cyc said:
This takes care of the first steps of creating a Law. Defining all the steps of this process needs to be in the Section mentioned above. It will include procedure for the discussion thread through polling standards.

After this Section is approved, it will make the rest of the CoL process more uniform and easier to understand. It has been said before that nothing of this sort is in the Constitution. I believe it should stay that way and be in the CoL. Comments?

I agree with you. The process of making and changing laws needs to be defined clearly, so that veteran and newb alike can understand. If it is in the CoL and people don't like it, for instance it causes some unforseen problem, then it can be changed more readily than putting it in the Constitution.
 
I'd just like to remind everyone that one of the proposed advantages to a law was that it would not take a long time or require a quorum too high to get easily. We've put some articles of the consitution up three or more times because of necessary attendence levels that are too high. The proposed advantage of a law is that you don't have to go through the citizen registry and pm everyone to get two thirds of the total census voting.
 
Epimethius said:
I'd just like to remind everyone that one of the proposed advantages to a law was that it would not take a long time or require a quorum too high to get easily. We've put some articles of the consitution up three or more times because of necessary attendence levels that are too high. The proposed advantage of a law is that you don't have to go through the citizen registry and pm everyone to get two thirds of the total census voting.
I agree that you don't want to make it too difficult. On the other hand, you don't want to make it too easy either. That is why I suggested that there be a 25 - 30% of census quorum. It guarentees that, for instance at this point, 14 - 17 people have to vote on the poll. Even that small number could fall if future general elections don't have the high turnout of our last one. The Constitution needs a higher standard, but even lower laws should require some level of interest for passage.
 
Code:
CoL I. Code of Laws Amendments

1. Altering the Code of Laws requires the proposed change to be presented in a
   discussion thread. When discussion dies down, a proposed poll must be posted 
   at the bottom of the discussion thread and remain there for at least 24 hours 
   for review. During this period of review, if any changes are made, the 24 
   hour review period starts over at that time. 
2. Once the review period ends, the author of the proposed change may 
   request a Judicial Review, by posting in the Judicial thread. Having passed 
   Judicial Review, the proposed poll may be posted in the Poll sub-subforum. 
   The poll must remain open for 72 hours.
3. A quorum of 25% of the active census is required for the poll results to be 
   valid. 67% (dropping fractions) of those voting must approve of the proposed 
   change for it to be admitted to the Code of Laws.

Here's a suggested proposal for CoL I. Code of Laws Amendments. Do you feel this is satisfactory legislation for this matter?
 
I really have no opinion on the quorum idea. I think that even with out the quorum, so long as there is a fairly long (72 hours seems more acceptable) polling time, a large number of people will see the poll and vote. REquiring a census seems trivial on a lower law, but I am neither opposed to nor for it. So if most people think it should be added, make it so.
 
Well, I suppose it's not necessary to have a quorum if we base the amount of Yes votes on the above formula. At this point, active census is 58. Above, quorum needed for a CoL Amendment would be 15 voters. 67% of quorum in Yes votes would be 10.

Basically that's 18% of the active quorum. But if the active census was to drop to say 25 voters, a quorum of 7 would be required. A total of 4 Yes votes would be required of the quorum. 4 Yes votes from an active census of 25 voters would be 16%. So basically we could just say a solid 17% of the active census is need in Yes votes.

Of course this is all subject to change after our active census figure levels out to reflect our active population.
 
Cyc said:
Code:
CoL I. Code of Laws Amendments

1. Altering the Code of Laws requires the proposed change to be presented in a
   discussion thread. When discussion dies down, a proposed poll must be posted 
   at the bottom of the discussion thread and remain there for at least 24 hours 
   for review. During this period of review, if any changes are made, the 24 
   hour review period starts over at that time.

Restarting the 24 hour period would introduce the same problem as a filibuster in the US Senate -- once someone starts talking, all they have to do is keep talking and it can never come to a vote. To avoid this, we need either an absolute time limit, or disallow subsequent changes by the same person from resetting the timer.

Code:
3. A quorum of 25% of the active census is required for the poll results to be 
   valid. 67% (dropping fractions) of those voting must approve of the proposed 
   change for it to be admitted to the Code of Laws.
Supermajorities of 67% are anathema to me. Instead, why not a 50% quorum and a simple majority? Based on a census of 60, that's 15 yes votes, and it takes at least 16 no votes to defeat the measure, where with a 25% quorum and 67% majority, 10 votes to pass but as few as 6 no notes could defeat it.
 
Well, DS if we had 16 voters and 6 were against the amendment, then it probably shouldn't be amitted to the CoL.

If there was a census of 60 voters and you wanted to use a 50% quorum and a simple majority, you would need 16 Yes votes.

In regards to the 24 hour period, mere talking couldn't restart it. It would have to be a bonfide change, accepted by those putting the poll together. The 24 hour period would not restart because some bozo decided to demand an unreasonable change. Any change would have to be actually written into the proposed poll by the author.
 
Cyc said:
In regards to the 24 hour period, mere talking couldn't restart it. It would have to be a bonfide change, accepted by those putting the poll together. The 24 hour period would not restart because some bozo decided to demand an unreasonable change. Any change would have to be actually written into the proposed poll by the author.

Seconded. If there is any change proposed, there should be a feel of general concensus among all of the people who have been discussing to change the law. I think the 24 hour period should continue unless a sufficient (how to define this is unknown to me) number of people wish to change and resubmit the law for the waiting period.
 
KCCrusader said:
I think the 24 hour period should continue unless a sufficient (how to define this is unknown to me) number of people wish to change and resubmit the law for the waiting period.

The 24 hour period is a minimum amount of time when it comes to this review. The proposed poll must be up for a minimum of 24 hours. The "general concensus among all people who have been discussing the changes to the law" is a major determining factor. If those people feel the need to extend the 24 hour period with more discussion, then so be it. But if the majority of these people feel a suggested change in invalid or just plain not good for the people or the Law, that suggested change may not necessarily extend the 24 hour period. There is a factor of common sense used in these matters. A good example of this is all the finalizing work Immortal and DaveShack did on the Constitution for this game, or the work that ravensfire and myself did for the last game.
 
My thoughts:

Just make sure that Abstentions count towards Quota, but not in the Yes-No Percentages. Or else, just not have them. It would be a bit disapointing to see this sort of a vote count with a failed measure: 19-12 with 8 Abstentions.

EDIT: Didn't see MHCarver's post.

I agree. I would like to add language that a "Second" and a "Third" must be obtained before the bill can go to JR. ("Second" and "Third" can be 1 member each saying "I support this bill as presented" or emrely "Second"/"Third".)

As so:

Current:

1. Altering the Code of Laws requires the proposed change to be presented in a
discussion thread. When discussion dies down, a proposed poll must be posted
at the bottom of the discussion thread and remain there for at least 24 hours
for review. During this period of review, if any changes are made, the 24
hour review period starts over at that time.
2. Once the review period ends, the author of the proposed change may
request a Judicial Review, by posting in the Judicial thread. Having passed
Judicial Review, the proposed poll may be posted in the Poll sub-subforum.
The poll must remain open for 72 hours.


My proposed revisions: Edited for His Honor Cyc's corrections.

1. Altering the Code of Laws requires the proposed change to be presented in a
discussion thread. When discussion dies down, a proposed poll must be posted
at the bottom of the discussion thread and remain there for at least 24 hours
for review. During this period, some form of a "Second" and a "Third" must
be obtained from at least two citizens other than the bill's author.
During this
period of review, if any changes are made, the 24 hour review period
starts over at that time and all "Seconds" and "Thirds" are lost.

2. Once the review period ends and a "Second" and a "Third" obtained,
the author of the proposed change may
request a Judicial Review, by posting in the Judicial thread. Having passed
Judicial Review, the proposed poll may be posted in the Poll sub-subforum.
The poll must remain open for 72 hours.
 
Yes, I like this idea. I'm not sure if we should restrict the response from others as a second and a third. The archives of law-making in Demogames are filled with phrases such as "Looks good to me". Maybe - During this period, some form of a "Second" and a "Third" must be obtained from at least two citizens other than the bill's author.

The over all idea is still there, but it's not as restrictive. The use of those words throughout the rest of the Law follow naturally and the use of parenthesis implies the aforementioned definition.
 
I support the great job Cyc has done in providing us some lawmaking, and I am not too happy with the destrucive forces that sabotage this. Just notice how certain debaters only advocate negative voting, where they never stand for something.

I think people should applaud Cyc for the legal work that has been done!
 
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Since the idea of the current proposal originated, the 2 main topics of concern have been about quorum/required YES votes and the 24 hour waiting period.

It was suggested that a high level of approval be obtained (say 60%) without any real quorum. This was countered with the idea that Laws should be easier to amend than the Articles of the Constitution. That a higher level of participation was more important and the approval rating be based lower, ranging from a simple majority to a percentage of the quorum (producing a lower over all approval rate). It was then suggested to skip the quorum , but use the quorum formula in determining the approval rate. An example was the 17% approval rate. So those are the options suggested thus far - 1. A low approval rate based on a quorum formula. 2. A medium quorum rate (50%) accompanied by a simple majority, and 3. A low quorum rate (25%) accompanied by a high approval rate (67%). Any comments on these 3 options? Even if you stated your preference before, I'd like to hear it again.

The 24 hour waiting period seems to be generally agreed upon with a concern about unnecessary extensions to it by a "filibustering" effort. I'm not sure any additional wording needs to be put in to cover this matter, as the intent of the Law is well accepted and understood. If anyone was not happy with the process, a new amendment could be drawn up at a later time. Basically, common sense would prevail. Any further comments on this idea?

After hearing futher comments on these ideas, I will add or alter any wording agreed upon in a proposed poll. Your participation is requested.
 
I concur with His Honor's ammendment to my suggestion regarding "Seconds" and "Thirds" and will make the corrections. As for "Approval" I have not formed a concrete opinion at this time.

I also applaud all those that have contributed time and effort to the shaping of our system of laws.
 
I personally favor option 3, low quorum with high percentage of support. This allows laws to be passed fairly easily and quickly if needed say before a turnchat. So far there is a minimum of 4 days from drafting to passing that seems to be a generally supported idea (at least 24 for discussion, poll open for 3 days)

Quite frankly, the process by which laws are created does not worry me, I simply want to see some way that laws can be passed in a simple yet complete manner that suits everyone. I will support the law as long as there is sufficient discussion time set aside before allowing review and a uniform poll time(72 hours eh?). THese help keep clutter out of the process.
 
Cyc said:
3. A low quorum rate (25%) accompanied by a high approval rate (67%). Any comments on these 3 options? Even if you stated your preference before, I'd like to hear it again

I still like something akin to the above, although I think 67% is too high. Stated simply: low or no quorum with approval from a clear majority of participants to pass(I still like 60%). Requiring "simple majority" (51% or more) runs the risk of disenfranchising half the populace, no matter how many participate. And I really don't know if I want the phrase "17% of the census" anywhere in our ruleset. ;) If we want to leave it loose, it should remain implied(ie no quorum).
 
Well, if you want 60% approval, then why not a 1/3rd Quarum?

Let's see... that makes 60% of 1/3rd of 50. So that's 60% of 16.6667 which is... Ten!

So 17 votes, 10 of which must be Yeas.

Let's check the other 2 options to date:

51% of 50% which is a majority of 25 which is: 13 Yeas out of 25.

2/3rds of 25% which is 2/3rds of 12.5 which comes out to: 8.333 or 9 out of 13.

Or just a flat 17% which comes out to... 9 Approval regardless of Nays. :(

So I disapprove of #1 as written.

Now, if it's 1/6th of the Quarum must approve and such number must exceed the number of "Nay" votes, then... *shrug* It's late...
 
I still think a majority of the active citizens (the ones who actually take the trouble to vote) should be able to pass new laws. I have never heard of a RL situation where a referendum poll with a yes/no answer is not decided by a majority of votes cast. Abstain is an option for social protest but should not count as a "vote" for this purpose.

We let the people choose next city site, next tech to research, and whether to accept trades based on the highest vote total, without even requiring a majority. Who are we to say that those same people can't pass a law or reject it based on the highest vote total, which in a 2 option poll and ignoring abstain is guaranteed to be either a tie or a majority.

Some percentage of quorum, and a simple majority please. :D
 
Top Bottom