splitting the constitution - how can that work?

[disorganizer]

it would not be "other no". it would still be "i dont care". but absolute majority means 50% of all votes casted must be there. its much harder to achieve this that the normal majority, so this would fit the laws-book.

 

[Shaitan]

The label might say "Abstain" or "I don't care" but the effect is "NO". If we use this system then honest labeling requires that we drop the Abstain option and go with a straight Yes/No.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan

Okay, let me try again.

Quorums work statistically. Of a pool of 50 people, a segment of 25 people will generally come to the same consensus as all 50. If there are 50 active citizens and a quorum of 25 then a measure can pass with 25 respondents and only 13 yes votes. It's not 13 people making the rule though, it's 25. Statistically, it would be the same result if all 50 voted.

I'm sticking with disorganizer on this one. The main reason for splitting the constitution is to make it difficult for constitutional amendments to pass. Passing a constitutional amendment should be on par with choosing a president and should be based on a comparable amount of votes. I say we get 34 people voting yes (out of 50) to pass an amendment. Remember the presidential veto is being dropped. Getting 17 votes out of a pool of 50 on a strictly yes/no question is not difficult at all. I still say there's no reason to put a time limit on amendment polls. When it comes time to post the amendment poll we will know how many votes are needed to pass it. Once that thresh hold is reached the amendment passes.
Out of the pool of 50 it would take 34 to pass an amendment, 17 for a law and 13 for a standard according to my suggestion above. I still haven't looked at the new version so I'm not sure what spread you are suggesting Shaitan.

I'll try to get to the new version soon. I've actually had to work today and I'm not used to that anymore.

 

[Cyc]

I've read version 1.1 and like it a lot better. It flows better and is less self-contridictory for me. As I've stated in the Polling Standards Comission thread, I believe the definitions of valid and invalid need to be changed. The definitions posted don't capture the full meaning of the words. They lead one to believe that the words mean what is actually just the outer shell of the word. With as much discussion as we've had on these words, I think a deeper, lengthier definition is called for.

 

[Shaitan]

So are you guys suggesting that we use a quorum of the active citizens for law polls and a quorum of all citizens for amendment polls?

I don't have a problem with forcing a majority show of support for constitutional changes, I just have a problem with presenting a misleading option on the poll. YES/NO/ABSTAIN is not an honest poll when ABSTAIN has the same result as NO. If we did this then we need to specify that the poll will be YES/NO with no ABSTAIN option.

Cyc - please comment on new definitions:

Invalid – A poll that has not met all of the poll standards (duration, participation, format). This poll’s results cannot be used to justify policies or decisions.

Valid – A poll that has met all of the poll standards (duration, participation, format). This poll’s results are official.

 

[Shaitan]

FYI: Our voter pool currently stands at 24 active citizens.

 

[Cyc]

Much better, Shaitan. Please allow me to add to each definition an ending piece.

Invalid - "or used in any official capacity."
Valid - "and may be used in any official capacity"

Also, a master wordsmith such as yourself surely must realize that abstain or "other" can pull votes away from or add to either a yes or no situation. You say, Shaitan, that an abstain is the same as a "NO". But if you vote abstain in the following poll, it is the same as a "YES".

"Unless a simple majority of "NO" votes are collected below, we will be attacking the Chinese next turn chat."
YES - 9 votes

NO - 8 votes

ABSTAIN - 2 votes

This may be a poor example, but I'm niether a wordsmith nor did I have enough time to think of a good example. But you see my point. It can go either way depending on the wording. Abstain is niether here nor there. It is only useful in record-keeping matters. It does definitely not need this much attention. We DO need to look closely at polls written by wordsmiths though...

 

[disorganizer]

i didnt mean to force us to use the definitions though. just my opinion shaitan;-)

the only thing we should definitely do 3 different kinds of poll, 1 VERY hard one (i even thing harder than choosing a presindent, since elections are simple votes) for the principles, a middle one for the laws and a very easy one for the regulations.
with the approoved/unapproved status of a law/principle proposal this would make the principles VERY fixed. as being this, they should be very vague also (like bill of rights or things like this in other constitutions).
then they dont have to be changed at all during the game. and should not, since they represent the game principles.
laws represent the ruleset, so this should also not be easy to change.
regulations is only the "howto" of implementing the laws (like the regulations books to interpret laws which judges use). they can easily be changed.
this does not prevent a law being propoted to a principle later (per request) or things like that. it just ensures we dont mix the sense of the 3 books.
(donsig: again one opinion with me.... scary!)

 

[disorganizer]

we should also think about wheter it makes sense to use multiple-choice elections. i will post a informational poll to this soon. i post a link in here then.

 

[Cyc]

Hey Dis. Feeling better? A couple of things I want to say here.

1. A Constitution does not have to be vague. In fact it's basically the opposite. It's very explicite in its descriptions and the parameters it lays out to address a situation. But the words are so well chosen that the basic intent can be used to cover a wide area of different topics. That's the reason our Constitution has remained intact and we've only added amendments to it. Please don't draw up an intentionally vague document because that's what you think Constitutions are supposed to be. They are well written, detailed, multi-faceted documents with an aura of greatness that lends to interpretation.

2. Please tell me what propoted means. At first I thought promoted....well,..maybe. Then proposed....mmm, maybe not...
proponent? no. I give up. Clue me in.

And one more thing. The multi-vote polls will be abused by some and not used by alot. The last one we had was very strange, in my opinion. Too many votes, not enough voters.

 

[Shaitan]

Cyc
I added the ending pieces to the definitions.
Yes, depending on the wording of the poll the abstain option in a majority required poll could work either way. My point is that it will always work as either YES or NO, never as ABSTAIN so should not be presented as an option. I am very against ABSTAIN being in this type of poll because it is very misleading. When people see ABSTAIN they vote it in order to show participation without modifying the results of the poll.

Instead of 3 different types of polls, how about if we use 3 different quorums? The quorum for a Constitutional amendment could be 3/4 of the Presidential returns (around 35, or 150% of the active citizens). The quorum for a law change could be 3/4 of the active citizens (around 16). The quorum for a standard change could be 1/2 of the active citizens (around 12). Alternately, get rid of the census of active citizens and use just the presidential returns (3/4 for amendments, 1/2 for laws, 1/4 for standards makes 35, 26, 13 for the 3 quorums). This has the strong advantage of keeping things simple.

 

[Shaitan]

Multi-choice polls are new here so there's bound to be some confusion before people catch on to what they're good for. They're the perfect vehicle for elections though as they will elect the candidate that the populace is most comfortable with every time.

 

[Shaitan]

We've got a couple of items that sort of fell by the wayside as we got into discussion on the quorums and poll styles. Please share your ideas on these:

1. Who controls workers?
2. Who has default command of items not detailed in the rules?
3. Who decides what to do with leaders?
4. Other sticky threads (Cultural Art Museum, Newspaper, Awards). We need a category name for these.
5. Citizens initiating votes on procedures, laws.

My thoughts are:

1. The President/DP
2. The President
3. The people, via polls. The polls would be the responsibility of the Pres.
4. No idea. I'm drawing a blank here.
5. I say no, but without great conviction. I like the idea but I think it's a huge can of worms that is better left unopened.

 

[disorganizer]

btw: the poll is up now in the poll subforum. just to have the link in the clipboard right now and no time...

 

[Cyc]

Thank you, Shaitan, for adding the end pieces.
I think we should take the ABSTAIN discussion out of here and put it in the Polling Standards Comission thread, at least for a while. I'd like to here what Eklektikos has to say about it, as well as others.
And I think that last bit is what Dis is talking about. Personally, I like both. Depending on when the change poll is initiated, it would use the end of month Presidential count, orrr use the census count that is done on let's say the 12th of every month.

 

[Cyc]

Quickly, on yer post #93 above, I agree with yer thoughts on the first three, basically.
#4 - Do we need a category? or would they just be floating, independent stickies? If you want a category name...Public Works?
#5 - The big one. Of course, citizens could run as many non-binding, informational polls as they please about changes. As far as getting a binding poll initiated, they should approach a Leader with a strong informational poll indicating support for the change.

I'm going to check out the poll Dis started and then split for awhile.

 

[Shaitan]

I have a family emergency and will most likely be unable to contribute to the discussion until after the weekend. Here's the latest update. Please continue working things out.

 

[disorganizer]

having citizens starting info-polls is also a good way of getting new and fresh ideas into politics. this is what our rl-governments have problems with, and why they really dont like the internet.
we have more possibilities electronically than normal polling in rl.
we could get a benefit from it, if we get it organized right.

another idea for the polls:
we could try to force icon-marking. lets say:
the exclamation mark sign (like in this post)
for ALL official polls and discussion threads
the question mark sign
all informational polls must have this sign.
list sign (the first in the list)
all official informational threads have this sign (like newspaper, history, census)
bulb sign
all citizen group-threads must have this sign.
other threads
can have any sign they like, but must NOT have any of the above mentioned.

violators wil be prosecuted!

 

[Cyc]

Dis, as much as I like yer enthusiasm, I wish you would post yer ideas on polling in the Polling Standards Commission thread. That way, as they are discussed there, if this thread needs polling standards to help make a decision, we know we can go to the PSG and find them.

 

[disorganizer]

cyc:
i just answered another post though but ok.

from this point on:
all POLLING related posts please redirect to polling standards commission

all others:
?