Ratification Poll for Constitutional Article I

[Donovan Zoi]

Shall we ratify Article I of our Constitution as follows?

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.

Relevant discussion

DG4 Discussion - Const: Article I

Please vote Yes, No or Abstain

This poll will run for 96 hours.

 

[Bootstoots]

I voted No. If 50 people vote in our first election (keep in mind that 68 voted in DG3 T1), that would require 33 yes votes for ratification in the first term, something I doubt we could achieve. I do think that either a 2/3 majority with 1/2 of the census as a quorum or the ordinary majority of the census sounds reasonable.

 

[Cyc]

I voted yes. If we grow tired of large turn outs in elections, maybe we will stop bringing our friends to vote for us and nothing else.

 

[ravensfire]

True, Cyc.

I will also like to remind everyone that DZ has mentioned that mods can, if needed, audit the polls to verify that all voters are registered citizens.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Aramazd]

I think instead of 2/3 just a majority

 

[Rik Meleet]

I'm very concerned about this.
The constitution has been worked on very hard by many. Changes to that have to be difficult. I fear that, as a reversed view from Bootstoots' , changing the constitution is getting easy.

Average number of voters: 50. That makes the census 34. And what if we gain more citizens and 70 people vote on the change; 34 "yes" voters and 36 "no".

There are more "No" than "Yes" voters, but the change to the constitution is, according to this poll, justified.

I don't want that. Vote for France; vote Non !

 

[Strider]

I've got to agree with Rik/Boots here, this can easily go against us, and hasn't been all that thought out yet. Of course, I voted yes to just simply get the ruleset together, and hopefully we can fix this mistake soon.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have not voted yet. I am still deciding on weather to accept this or reject it.

 

[donsig]

I'm voting no. I agree with the idea but think the wording is too convoluted to be understandable.

 

[BCLG100]

im voting no, mainly because i think it is a bad idea but also partly because i didnt understand it. i think the whole constitution is like this and this is what puts newbies off joining as they cant get a handle on it.

 

[Cyc]

Ya know DZ, they're right. I mean I voted yes, because, well, I understood it and agree with it. But maybe we should get an English teacher in here to disect that Article. As I go back and read it now, it does seem like it was written by some high-falootin' aliens speaking legaleze.

Anyway, I hope it wins so we can move on. Basically, what it says is that you take the number of votes from each...never mind.

 

[Strider]

It needs a bit of some add-on's also, of course... Don't look at me, I'm likely to post it in Italian by accident... I suck at english. I've just improved it a bit lately because of some lessons, but I still suck at it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@Rik, "must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change" actually means that the 34-36 vote in your example wouldn't win. But I agree that this can be worded in a much less confusing manner. For the record, I am all for a rework of this if it fails. And if we go by the standard 2/3rds majority to pass a Constitutional article then we don't have the votes yet anyway.

On a more important note, it is nice to see such interest for this article now, but a discussion thread on this topic has been opened for the last week. I usually let discussion die down to a halt before I post these polls, as was done here. I know that there is alot to sift through this month, but I think we need to get ourselves in the habit of participating in pre-poll discussions as much as possible. As is evidenced here, our laws are only as good as the input the receive from the populace.

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
@Rik, "must vote affirmatively in winning the decision for the change" actually means that the 34-36 vote in your example wouldn't win. But I agree that this can be worded in a much less confusing manner. For the record, I am all for a rework of this if it fails. And if we go by the standard 2/3rds majority to pass a Constitutional article then we don't have the votes yet anyway.

On a more important note, it is nice to see such interest for this article now, but a discussion thread on this topic has been opened for the last week. I usually let discussion die down to a halt before I post these polls, as was done here. I know that there is alot to sift through this month, but I think we need to get ourselves in the habit of participating in pre-poll discussions as much as possible. As is evidenced here, our laws are only as good as the input the receive from the populace.

Well, I didn't partcipate in the discussion mainly because of the reason stated above. On the other hand, I don't think this is going to get the 2/3rds majority as 16 people out of about 21 have voted and one more no vote would knock it out. (I think the 21 is wrong, but oh well).

 

[DaveShack]

A new ratification poll using updated language has been created here.