Office of the Judiciary - Term 5
- Thread starter Shaitan
- Start date
Shaitan
der Besucher
I'm right here.
The quorum to validate a legislative poll is 26. To approve the measure, 2/3 of those must vote affirmatively. There is no requirement of 35 people for anything.
There is no quorum requirement for Spot Council Votes.
There is no rule for citizen votes in the chat except an outside reference in the COS that does not give them validity. Citizen votes in the chat are an ambiguity. They are a tort or "common knowledge" rule not represented in the official rules.
The quorum to validate a legislative poll is 26. To approve the measure, 2/3 of those must vote affirmatively. There is no requirement of 35 people for anything.
There is no quorum requirement for Spot Council Votes.
There is no rule for citizen votes in the chat except an outside reference in the COS that does not give them validity. Citizen votes in the chat are an ambiguity. They are a tort or "common knowledge" rule not represented in the official rules.
Shaitan
der Besucher
2/3 is the approval level required to pass a measure. 2/3 of the respondents to a poll must vote affirmatively for a proposal to become law. Quorums are completely different. A quorum is simply the total number of participants that a poll must reach before it can be considered valid.
Eklektikos
Eponymous
I'm not sure that I like the idea of in-chat citizen votes being an ambiguity, and I have no truck with torts or any sort (except sachertorte... mmm.... 
). Seriously though, is it really wise to leave such a powerful mechanism unregulated?
). Seriously though, is it really wise to leave such a powerful mechanism unregulated?disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
The national park poll passed requirements:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28523
As the 2/3 approval will be given even if the 3 missing votes for the quorum will be "no".
How to continue?
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=28523
As the 2/3 approval will be given even if the 3 missing votes for the quorum will be "no".
How to continue?
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
shaitan:
i seemed to have misinterpreted you post in the park-poll. mea culpa.
of course you are right with the 2/3 approvel and 1/2 quorum.
i seemed to have misinterpreted you post in the park-poll. mea culpa.
of course you are right with the 2/3 approvel and 1/2 quorum.
Cyc
Looking for the door...
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
oh lord shaitan, high priest of the church of the constitutional ammendment and ratification of the laws, can you forgive my misbelief in your judgement?
Shaitan
der Besucher
But of course.
I'm sorry, dis, but the park law poll does still need 3 more participants before it reaches quorum and becomes valid. At least one of them must be a "YES" vote.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Ah, I see the confusion now. The citizen polling in the turn chat is simply to help the DP make decisions. All of the power for the activities comes from the DP. Citizens are polled when the DP wants/needs feedback.Originally posted by Eklektikos
I'm not sure that I like the idea of in-chat citizen votes being an ambiguity, and I have no truck with torts or any sort (except sachertorte... mmm....
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
i thought if we get 1 more yes and it is impossible for the no's to get past the 1/3 mark, it will be still valid?
(i miscalculated with rounding down the result of 2/3 of 26 instead of rounding it up before).
i could argument with the sense of the quorum:
the quorum was implemented to ensure it was citizen's will. if we dont get the participation of the quorum but the no votes could not bring down the result, it would still be in the sense of the quorum rule to make the poll valid.
since this is nowhere specified, finetuning seems to be needed there.
example:
with 24 votes, the quorum would not have been held. when 22 of those 24 votes were yes and only 2 no, the poll would need 7 more votes to be declined. if the poll is older than 48 hours, the poll-rules say it will be finished as soon as the quorum is matched, so it will be closed with 4 no, which will let it pass.
so it will then be impossible to decline the poll even if the quorum participation was not reached.
(i miscalculated with rounding down the result of 2/3 of 26 instead of rounding it up before).
i could argument with the sense of the quorum:
the quorum was implemented to ensure it was citizen's will. if we dont get the participation of the quorum but the no votes could not bring down the result, it would still be in the sense of the quorum rule to make the poll valid.
since this is nowhere specified, finetuning seems to be needed there.
example:
with 24 votes, the quorum would not have been held. when 22 of those 24 votes were yes and only 2 no, the poll would need 7 more votes to be declined. if the poll is older than 48 hours, the poll-rules say it will be finished as soon as the quorum is matched, so it will be closed with 4 no, which will let it pass.
so it will then be impossible to decline the poll even if the quorum participation was not reached.
Shaitan
der Besucher
No, the actual quorum must be reached before the poll is valid. The quorum represents a mimimum level of acceptable interest. That is, if a proposal cannot interest enough people to vote on it, there is not enough interest to function in the game.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
Is this really what was intended to do? As i remember our discussion, we intended to implement a quorum as measure for wheter the result of a poll really represents the will of citizenry, not to get a minimum participation.
It was made to prevent 4 citizens polls.
IMHO, the above scenario clearly shows that if it is impossible for a poll to be declined if all further votes till quorum are no, it should be accepted as it shows the will of citizenry anyway!
It was made to prevent 4 citizens polls.
IMHO, the above scenario clearly shows that if it is impossible for a poll to be declined if all further votes till quorum are no, it should be accepted as it shows the will of citizenry anyway!
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
I would like to have a judical review of the presidential elections. As this election had a 2x higher participation than a) the average poll participation of non-election polls and b) a still MUCH higher participation than any other election, i highly doubt that all votes had been casted by citizens.
this will greatly invalidate our census data for polls and stall all constitutional changes for the next game!
The judges should try to get voters-lists from the ops (not what ppl votet, but who voted. maybe even only which non-citizens voted). We dont even have to validate the result, only the census-validation is urgently needed.
No suspect here... where should i know him/her from? It will show on the investigation who will be the suspect.
example:
similar research in apolytonia showed 1/5 of the casted votes were done by non-citizens. assuming the same number here would lead to a census of 41 instead of 51, which would lead to a quorum of 21 instead of 25.
this will greatly invalidate our census data for polls and stall all constitutional changes for the next game!
The judges should try to get voters-lists from the ops (not what ppl votet, but who voted. maybe even only which non-citizens voted). We dont even have to validate the result, only the census-validation is urgently needed.
No suspect here... where should i know him/her from? It will show on the investigation who will be the suspect.
example:
similar research in apolytonia showed 1/5 of the casted votes were done by non-citizens. assuming the same number here would lead to a census of 41 instead of 51, which would lead to a quorum of 21 instead of 25.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Dis, there is no requirement of citizenship to vote in the polls. Even if 100% of the votes were by non-citizens they would not be invalidated.
Shaitan
der Besucher
With this high quorum it does skew to that reasoning. However, with a lower quorum level it skews the opposit way if we allow polls to be valid without reaching the participation requirement. The problem here is not the quorum rule, it is the high quorum level. The best way to procede at this point is to attack that level.
If we were using the proposed "average of elections" to determine the census it would be 38. This would make a much more attainable quorum of 19.
disorganizer
Deity
- Joined
- Mar 30, 2002
- Messages
- 4,233
I agree on that point, shaitan. Please put forward urgent discussion on that point. We will be stalled as the level at the moment is almost impossible to reach. As we now have the possibility of changing many bad rules before the next game starts, this is bad.
non citizens participating in the ELECTIOn will effect the outcome of polls. they will invalidate polls which should be valid from the constitutions point of view (they represent citizens will), but due to the non-citizens election-participation, they wont.
non citizens participating in the ELECTIOn will effect the outcome of polls. they will invalidate polls which should be valid from the constitutions point of view (they represent citizens will), but due to the non-citizens election-participation, they wont.
Shaitan
der Besucher
Similar threads
