Judicial Discussion JR1 CoL Ratification Poll legality

[Swissempire]

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

The code of Laws was ratified, its whether the scandal was enough to overturn them, thats what i thought was the case

What I am trying to point out, is there polls were all considered binding and always have been

The code of laws is considered binding and always had been, and since it made the Triumvirate government the law, then it should stay the law, even if other binding polls said the majority of the citziens SUPPORTED the flexible theory and would like it put in place. But when given a code of laws that was not what the majority had recommended, deceived or not, they ratified it in a binding poll and made it LAW! I see no reason for it to be overturned!

 

[Blkbird]

For one thing, whenever someone didn't want a poll to be binding, they either stated: "This poll is non binding" or "This poll is informational only"

That's just another claim without evidance. "Whenever someone didn't want..."? How did you know *that*? You checked *all* polls of *all* demogames and personally asked each author what they had wanted at the time they posted the poll?

Second lets talk about the defintion of "binding", in my opinion it means elected officials are forced to follow them, in the past informational polls would guide the elected official but they wouldn't be forced to follow them

I agree to your definition of binding. A non-binding decision doesn't legally have to be followed by officials. But politically an official certainly needs good arguments not to follow an even non-binding decision of the people.

 

[ravensfire]

That's just another claim without evidance. "Whenever someone"? How did you know *that*? You checked *all* polls of *all* demogames and personally asked each author what they had wanted at the time they posted the poll?

Can you find an example where they didn't? You call his claim without evidence, do you have some that backs yours?

Black_Hole has been here a while, and has some experience that you don't. For every DG that I've been in, a poll posted by an official that is in his area is considered binding unless they clearly state that it is informational.

Any other approach yields chaos.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

The code of Laws was ratified, its whether the scandal was enough to overturn them, thats what i thought was the case

No, that's not the case. The case is if the ratification was legal (and therefore valid) or illegal (and therefore invalid).

 

[Blkbird]

Can you find an example where they didn't? You call his claim without evidence, do you have some that backs yours?

I didn't make a claim, so why would I need evidance?

I didn't - and don't claim anything about the *intent* of people posting polls - they may have wanted a poll to be binding or non-binding when they didn't specifiy one way or another. I only described how I precepted things, and how I think they *should* be precepted. I repeatedly used "in my opinion" to emphasize that, and I did provide arguments for why I think they should be precepted the way I do.

 

[ravensfire]

I didn't make a claim, so why would I need evidance?

I didn't - and don't claim anything about the *intend* of people posting polls. I only described how I recepted them. I repeatedly used "in my opinion" to emphasize that.

Opinion, but no evidence, no support.

Gotcha.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Blkbird]

Opinion, but no evidence, no support.

No evidence, but arguments, so *with* support. Evidences are needed for claims, arguments are needed for opinions.

PS: I edited the post you quoted, please re-read.

 

[DaveShack]

The people watching is so fun here!

So, consider the possibility that all 3 polls are binding, when viewed from the perspective of the facts known at the time they were posted.

What kind of poll is the ratification poll? Does the Constitution specifically define what kind of poll this has to be?

Knowing what was going on inside the Constitution author's head is quite an unfair advantage to me so this question is left as an exercize for the citizens and my fellow justices.

 

[DaveShack]

(In response to the analogous situation)

I thought you weren't ruling on those decisions, but on whether the CoL is actually ratified

In the analogous situation, this JR would be held on the question whether the declaration of war is valid.

 

[ravensfire]

No evidence, but arguments, so *with* support. Evidences are needed for claims, arguments are needed for opinions.

PS: I edited the post you quoted, please re-read.

To along with your edit, think about how treating all polls posted by an official in an area they control as binding would eliminate completely the "perception" issue. Assuming, of course, they don't indicate that it's informational only. It greatly simplifies everything AND is how past DG's have been done.

That it's not in the Tri system is the fault of the author, as the Flex system and numerous prior DG's all contain that language. Indeed, much of the Tri polling standards is from prior DG's. I'll quote the relevant section from DG VII:

Polls posted by an elected official on an area they control are considered official and binding unless specifically stated otherwise. Polls posted by citizens, by officials outside their area or by officials in their area explicitly noted as such are considered unofficial, and do not bind officials in any way. Officials should, however, take such polls into account during planning.

Given that such an approach does reduce confusion and interpretation errors, why should that approach not be taken here?

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[donsig]

I have another question or two. Before asking them I'd like to remind citizens presenting legal arguments that I think the constitutional articles relevent to this JR are unclear. I think it is appropriate in this JR to fall back on the intent of those who wrote the constitution. I encourage all interested parties to present evidence from the original constitutional debates to back up their legal briefs in this thread. I'd further like to remind you all that I did not participate in those debates. My mind is a tabla rasa ready for you to fill with the proper evidence.

If a poll does not specify whether it is binding or opinion poll, should it automatically be assumed to default to one of these? In other words, should all polls that do not declare themsleves to be either opinion poll or binding be considered opinion polls? Should they all be considered binding?

If an initiative and a referendum are in conflict, which should prevail?

 

[ravensfire]

If an initiative and a referendum are in conflict, which should prevail?

I'll take the easy one by quoting the Constitution, Article C.1.3 :

* An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
* Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.
* Non-binding polls have precedence over non-polling decision types.
* Citizen input has precedence over mandate.
* If two or more polls or discussions occur on a matter, the last one to complete shall prevail.
* Lower forms of law may modify parts of this hierarchy, except for the provision regarding initiative which may not be modified.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

 

[Swissempire]

by daveshacks defintion, a intititave would, seeing as it has precedent over future decistions(sp?) That said i feel the code of Laws should have precedent over everything, and should be consisdered a part of the constition(which i think it may be) I'm really tired right now and can't remember if it is. But the Code of Laws was ratified scandal free, and is the law of the land. See my above post as to why, because i don't feel like repeating myself. The decision seems fairly obvious in this judicial review.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

If I am reading the Constitution correctly, I really don't think it matters if even all three polls are binding. However, I won't even begin to say that because the Constitution is a bit unclear as to what constitutes "binding." But let's just assume that all three are? What does everyone think of this interpretation?

By Referendum in the form of an official, binding poll which has force over the current decision only.

I believe that the two polls between Tri/Flex could be seen as Referendums at best: the "current decision" being to choose between two governments.

By Initiative in the form of a binding poll initiated by the citizenry, which has force over a current decision and future decisions of the same type.

Ratification of our first Code of Laws must be seen as an initiative, since it will be the basis for all future legal decisions (until modified via a later initiative, of course).

In the event that two or more such delegations of the Power of the People are in conflict, the following hierarchy shall determine which decision has precedence.
--->An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.

Per this part of of the Constitution, Initiative trumps all else. I take this to mean that the ratification of the Triumvirate government trumps the previous polls.

----

But wait, there's more.........

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Going back to the Constitution:

Article A - Forms of Law

1. Governing rules shall consist of this Constitution, such amendments that shall follow and lower forms of law that may be implemented.
2. No rule shall be valid that contradicts the Constitution.
   • Rules which are more specific on a given point may clarify more general points without being contradictory.
3. These rules may not contradict the rules and regulations of the Civfanatics Forums. Moderators may veto any such rules.

Article A specifically mentions that "lower forms of law....may be implemented." There is no mention of a prior run-off poll between two different forms of law in our Constitution. Therefore, the ratification of our Code of Laws can be rightly seen as our first official act under our Constitution.

As far as I can see, the relevance of the current Triumvirate ruleset cannot be put to question when based on our Constitution alone. It is our law, and cannot be removed --- even when faced with the dilemma of prior foul play. I truly believe we would have to go outside of our Constitution to prove otherwise. Do we really wish to do that?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I have another question or two. .......

If a poll does not specify whether it is binding or opinion poll, should it automatically be assumed to default to one of these? In other words, should all polls that do not declare themsleves to be either opinion poll or binding be considered opinion polls? Should they all be considered binding?

donsig, you actually asked this earlier in the Constitution Draft: Discussion thread:

Refering to the later post about the power of the people, I think it's a good idea in general. (Also, POP is a much better acronym than WOTP! ) The only problem I see is that section refers to binding polls. Just what distinguished a binding poll from a non-binding poll? We had debate back in the Civ III demogames and we found it a very sticky situation. Does one merely state in the poll that it's binding or non-binding? Use who posted the poll (elected official versus just plain citizen) as the criterion? Come up with a standard definition of a binding poll? The last option is the best we could come up with.

The idea of making a hierarchy for resolving conflicts is great but remember there can be conflicts within each item and not just betwen different items. For instance you can have two polls (make them both binding polls if you like) that conflict. It would be nice to have the resolution procedure to such a conflict spelled out as well.

The main point I'm trying to make here is that, like with the exploits in E4, if you're going to put a term like *binding poll* into the constitution then it should be defined in the constitution.

To which DaveShack replied:

On binding vs non-binding, what I'm aiming for with a binding poll is the ability of an informed majority to make absolute decisions about game play. Majority is easy to define, but informed is not. I'm hoping to have a way to define the "informed" part in lower law so we can tweak it as necessary. With the opened by the officialcriteria for a binding poll, the people cannot directly require the official to listen to them. An official can merely ignore the request for a poll, and there is nothing the people can do short of a recall -- which is too late if the decision is for the current play session.

On the hierarchy for multiple decisions on the same topic, the last decision wins. This means no decision is ever permanent, the people can always change their mind with another decision on the same topic.

Hope this helps you out. I'll see what else I can dig up.

 

[Blkbird]

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

 

[DaveShack]

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

To answer these questions myself could be construed as a ruling on parts of the case, or at least prematurely reveal the likely outcome. If I desire the ability to have influence over the proceedings prior to posting my ruling, it is necessary to draw the necessary answers out of someone else. It's working too, Donovan Zoi seems to have caught the drift of the "what kind of poll is a ratification" question perfectly.

Under normal circumstances, I'd just give an answer and move on, but it's necessary in this case to try to convince the Judge Advocate and Public Defender that a particular kind of ruling is the right answer (in my opinion), without coming right out and telling them what that answer should be. Of course we're each quite capable of deciding for ourselves but we don't want to have three different opinions, so we're cautiously feeling each other out.

Edit: You'll see in further responses below that I'm perfectly comfortable though with answering questions that other people ask.

 

[donsig]

I'll take the easy one by quoting the Constitution, Article C.1.3 :

* An initiative has force of law and supercedes any other decision type (including an earlier initiative on the same subject) except another later initiative which repeals it.
* Binding polls of any type have precedence over any other decision type.

-- Ravensfire, Public Defender

If an initiative supercedes *any other decision type* and a binding poll has precedence over *any other decision type* then I'm at a loss to tell which is higher in the hierarchy.

Since analogies have been popular in this thread I'd say asking which is *higher* is like asking which came first, the chicken or the egg. As I said before, conflict within the constitution allows us to delve into the intent behind what is written. Did the framers intend for initiatives to win in conflicts with binding polls? Are initiatives assumed to always be binding polls? In other words, all initiatives are binding polls but all binding polls are not initiatives?

Donovan_Zoi did some good research on binding polls in the Constitutional debates and came up with this:

On binding vs non-binding, what I'm aiming for with a binding poll is the ability of an informed majority to make absolute decisions about game play. Majority is easy to define, but informed is not. I'm hoping to have a way to define the "informed" part in lower law so we can tweak it as necessary. With the opened by the officialcriteria for a binding poll, the people cannot directly require the official to listen to them. An official can merely ignore the request for a poll, and there is nothing the people can do short of a recall -- which is too late if the decision is for the current play session.

On the hierarchy for multiple decisions on the same topic, the last decision wins. This means no decision is ever permanent, the people can always change their mind with another decision on the same topic.

SO, now that we're delving into the murky world of intent we have a can of worms opened. This quote has greatly impacted my thinking on this JR. The informed majority phrase sheds a whole new light on this problem. Given the fraudulent nature of the first polls can we say the majority of those voting in the ratification poll was informed? If not, then how does that affect the *bindingness* (to coin a phrase) of the ratification poll? Were the terms *binding* and *non-binding* meant to be applied only to things pertaining to game play or to demogame gameplay as well?

I'm a bit confused by the attitude of the honorable Chief Justice. Instead of working on the case, it seems to me that he's more in the mood of giving free lectures (with homeworks and all) on constitutional law here...

I'm curious as to what work you would have him do. If he is the main author of the constitution then what does he have to do? I would think he understands what is written there as well as any of us and knows better than any of us what the intent behind the words was. And I missed the homework assignment. Hope I don't get a zero.

 

[DaveShack]

DZ, thanks for digging up that quote. I was planning to go look for it after getting the kids into bed, but you beat me to it.

Did you add the bold on informed majority or was that in the original thread? If you bolded it, you picked exactly what words I was planning to use for the answer to Donsig's question in this thread.

Informed in this usage is primarily the traditional polling standards. Among other things it means aware of what the poll means, clearly defined options, links to discussions, knowledge of what will happen if each option wins, and definite ending time. A poll does not necessarily need to have every one of these attributes at a level of perfection in order for the citizens to be informed, and therefore for the poll to be binding. In particular, it is possible to imagine a poll for which the citizens are so obviously informed that it might be questionable in each of the polling standards areas, but still be subjectively judged to be binding.

On a more general note, the tradition is clearly that polls are binding unless there is some attribute of the poll which makes it non-binding. Being explicitly marked unofficial, informational, or non-binding, having no significant discussion, being posted as a flagrant means of challenging a previous decision, and obvious attemts by one official to undermine another official's agenda are things which might cause a poll to be considered non-binding.