splitting the constitution - how can that work?

[Rain]

I developed this for something else but as it seems relevant to this discussion i thought i would post it here. I think it establishes some desired principles and might be suitable as a over riding statement once further devleoped. If nothing else i think it should serve as guide for those attempting to rework the constitution. Anyway food for thought...

It seems to me that the streams of thought on citizen representation essentially divide into

1) all issues whould be decided by citizen polls
2) issues should be decided by citizen polls when feasible
3) the cabinet acts as a proxy for the citizens

Given that 1) while ideal is never fully compatible with playability and (3) denies any role for the citizenry, the pragamatic result is (2) with the cabinet acting as proxy when (1) is not feasible.

Objectively we should strive toward (1) whenever possible. The difficulty develops in defining "feasibilty" and who determines this.
Since an appeal to the citizenry is not by defintion immediately available then the goal should be to establish the broadest base of support for the decision in keeping with the spirit of (1). Therefore such decisions should be made by cabinet vote which is a broader basis than the decision of any one executive member and that cabnet vote should to the degree possible be influenced by what evidence (if any) is available regarding citizen opinion.

 

[Richard III]

My God! The bureaucratization! I'm glad I didn't become a citizen after all!

 

[Rain]

******************
Point 1 Right to Assemble.
b Political Parties are not permitted. A political party is a group that promotes one or more candidates based on their affiliation rather than their politics
******************

I don't see the distinction between affiliation and politics. A political party promotes its candidates based on their politics - that is the basis of their affiliation by definition.

******************
Point 3 Right to Free Speech
a Citizens may post their comments in forum threads wherever they are warranted.
b Citizens may post their comments in chats wherever they are warranted
******************

Since warranted implies that they are guaranteed this right somewhere else is that the case? It might be simpler to state this as except where explicitly prohibited by law etc

***********************
Section C The Executive Branch
Point 6 The President makes decisions on what to do with Great Leaders.
Point 7 The President can veto a Legislative Council Vote.
***********************

I a accordance with the principles i have stated in my previous post - the president should have not have either of these rights.

In fact if i recall the debate that lead to this exercise - it was acknowledged that (7) wuld not be required if the constituton was revised.

*************************
Point 4 Department Leaders share several powers and responsibilities, regardless of department
f Call Legislative and Override Council Votes.
****************************
Again in keeping with the principles mentioned before dept leaders should have no right of override.

****************************
Point 5 Some departmental powers and responsibilities overlap. If overlap should cause the creation of non-complementary plans, departmental precedence will be determined by rank in the Chain of Command
****************************

This shoudl be decided by cabinet vote it gives excessive power via the coc and thereby reduces citizen input in any action.

********************************************
Re Mil LEader
f When the economy is mobilized for war, becomes the defacto President, supplanting the President in the Chain of Command
****************************************
Again this is needs to be examined. It may be appropriate for the mil leader to assume some presidential activites but i think it is inappropriate to displace the president. Further it is not clear what the chain of command is in such a case. Where does the president move to for example.

The entire leadership section would be better if it was presetned in terms of leader of dept x proposes action xxx instead of decides action xxx. This more accurately reflects the principles i stated: thus a dept head proposes an action or series of actions for cabinet vote.

Will get to more of the document later...

 

[Cyc]

Good stuff, Rain. Let me go through it again.

 

[disorganizer]

@rain: one problem: a cabinet poll might take longer than a citizen poll
a citizen poll seems to reach the quorum rules after 2-3 days, cabinet sometimes not after 5 days, since cabinet polls are dependant on 8 specific people, while citizen polls are only needing an average number of votes.

so 2) will be easier to achieve when using citizen polls for all issues, plus when a chat it there all not-stoppable decisions (like popup-events) can be decided by citizen spot-votes. the cabinet vote is not needed at all (maybe just as a ratification-barricade for rule-changes) for decision making.
this would almost be 1), with the except of what we can impossibly get with 1), the pre-turn events.

for the rest of the discussion:
maybe less is more here. if we make less rules, the game will get simpler.

 

[Rain]

Originally posted by disorganizer
@rain: one problem: a cabinet poll might take longer than a citizen poll
a citizen poll seems to reach the quorum rules after 2-3 days, cabinet sometimes not after 5 days, since cabinet polls are dependant on 8 specific people, while citizen polls are only needing an average number of votes.

so 2) will be easier to achieve when using citizen polls for all issues, plus when a chat it there all not-stoppable decisions (like popup-events) can be decided by citizen spot-votes. the cabinet vote is not needed at all (maybe just as a ratification-barricade for rule-changes) for decision making.
this would almost be 1), with the except of what we can impossibly get with 1), the pre-turn events.

for the rest of the discussion:
maybe less is more here. if we make less rules, the game will get simpler.

Regarding your last comment first, I agree. I was simply addressing the document as presented. I don't think i added to it.

With respect to your second comment i dont see how the citizens can be polled on all issues as they arise in a turn. At some point there has to be a cutoff or the games becomes unplayable. Where this cutoff is also something that is inherently difficult to define. This is where the cabinet acts as proxy both in detemrining the resolution of non-citizen polled issues in turn and in decidng which issues to take to the citizenry from the turn (utilizing what custom, precedent and available info on citizen opinion exists).

With regard to the cabinet i was thinking in terms of in-game decisisions via chat, not polling in the forums. If you can poll the cabinet in the forums as you point out, you can equally poll the citizens.

 

[donsig]

Now that Shaitan is back and we have some input from Rain I hope we can return to this discussion.

While I like the idea of splitting the consitution into three books I think the constitution itself should be able to stand alone and I propose that we concentrate on the constitution itself with a goal of getting the new one in place by the start of term 4. We can hammer out the laws and regulations in term 4.

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Rain
Right to Assemble.
I don't see the distinction between affiliation and politics. A political party promotes its candidates based on their politics - that is the basis of their affiliation by definition.

I think you have more faith in politics than I do.
Generally speaking, a political party promotes a candidate because of the candidate's affiliation to the party, not because of the candidate's actual politics. In other words, it doesn't matter if the candidate is the best person for the job, it only matters that the candidate is a member of the party. Here's a real world example: In the last senatorial election in New York, Hillary Clinton was supported by the Democratic party against Rick Lazio, a Republican. Their actual political stances were almost identical despite their party affiliations. Rick had a long history of cooperation with the movers and shakers in NYC and upstate New York. He was an incumbent congressman of New York. Hillary had no affiliation in the state. Given that their politics were so similar and Rick was in a better position to help the state, shouldn't the Democratic party have supported him? Of course not, as the political views and qualifications of the candidates is not important in party politics, only the party affiliation.

Right to Free Speech
Since warranted implies that they are guaranteed this right somewhere else is that the case? It might be simpler to state this as except where explicitly prohibited by law etc

Perhaps I had a poor word choice. I used warrant in its meaning of "justification for an action". Perhaps "appropriate" would be better? We want to steer away from prohibitive statements and use inclusive ones.

The Executive Branch
I a accordance with the principles i have stated in my previous post - the president should have not have either of these rights.

In fact if i recall the debate that lead to this exercise - it was acknowledged that (7) wuld not be required if the constituton was revised.

Somebody needs to be ultimately responsible for leaders. This still has to be done according to the will of the citizens, of course. It could be put under the Domestic Department if there are objections to it being a province of the presidency.

I couldn't find a concensus on the veto so I left it in. I added a veto override as that was a concern mentioned by several people.

Department Leaders
Again in keeping with the principles mentioned before dept leaders should have no right of override.

The override vote is only to override a presidential veto.

This shoudl be decided by cabinet vote it gives excessive power via the coc and thereby reduces citizen input in any action.

The citizens input into the individual leader's instructions. The COC and right of placement determined by it simply break ties between contradictory leadership plans.

Re Mil LEader
Again this is needs to be examined. It may be appropriate for the mil leader to assume some presidential activites but i think it is inappropriate to displace the president. Further it is not clear what the chain of command is in such a case. Where does the president move to for example.

The only presidential activity with a military aspect is play of the game.

The military leader tops the chain of command in this case. The rest of the chain is not affected so the President is number two, under the military leader.

The entire leadership section would be better if it was presetned in terms of leader of dept x proposes action xxx instead of decides action xxx. This more accurately reflects the principles i stated: thus a dept head proposes an action or series of actions for cabinet vote.

I see your point. "Decides" sounds arbitrary. How about "organizes and confirms" or something similar?

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by donsig
Now that Shaitan is back and we have some input from Rain I hope we can return to this discussion.

While I like the idea of splitting the consitution into three books I think the constitution itself should be able to stand alone and I propose that we concentrate on the constitution itself with a goal of getting the new one in place by the start of term 4. We can hammer out the laws and regulations in term 4.

This sounds like a good plan to me. We have the advantage of seeing the proposed laws and standards at the same time so we can see the effect of constitutional changes on the proposals immediately.

I think we need to answer 3 questions before we are ready to submit the constitution:

1. Will this constitution define and defend the basic concepts of the game?
2. Will this constitution allow the game to progress at an acceptable rate? i.e. is it restrictive enough to allow efficient game play?
3. Will this constitution allow the players of the game to enjoy themselves? i.e. is it permissive enough to allow participation?

Those aren't in any particular order as #3 is obviously the most important.

 

[Rain]

Originally posted by Shaitan

I think you have more faith in politics than I do.
Generally speaking, a political party promotes a candidate because of the candidate's affiliation to the party, not because of the candidate's actual politics. In other words, it doesn't matter if the candidate is the best person for the job, it only matters that the candidate is a member of the party. Perhaps I had a poor word choice.

Actually i have no faith in politics at all - which is why i have an issue with this group business. Fundamentally all these groups weild political power and no definition is going to alter that reality. The only result will be driving the evidence underground where it is not readily apparent that the influence exists.

To reference your direct argument :
I think the difference in my thinking is that if you join the party you subscribe to its political values. Whether you do that becuase you believe in them or because you are machievellian doesnt really matter to the final outcome. The parties power derives from its values at some level so they are shared (truly or cynically as the case may be be).

One last point is the US political arena is a bit different than the norm in global politics. Party lines and affiliations seem to have far less meaning there than in many other jurisdictions. The example you quoted would be an uncommon to non-existent occurence in other countries that come to my mind. The difference is probably a result of many political systems being derived from/or similar to the British parliamentary model where party allegiance is generally strongly reinforced.

 

[donsig]

I'm off to work early today but hope to get a look at the latest version of the constitution soon. (Has there been only one set of changes so far?) The three questions you pose Shaitan are super and I for one will try to keep them in mind.

Now as for Hillary, she has more political clout in her pinky than Mr. Lazio will ever have and I think that puts her in a better position to help NY in the Senate. (Whether she will or not is a different question.) I'm just glad Alphonse retired but I do miss Moynihan. Can't wait for Pataki to get another job. Hmm... now what was that you were saying about political parties?

 

[Shaitan]

So how about political parties then? This was a leftover from Ducky's original document that (to my mind) was never successfully explained. Are parties so bad? Should we allow them? What if they had to be tied to a citizen group? That (should) guarantee that it's not just a power block but a real joining of opinion. What about restricting each person to one party (as we do here in the US)? Is a party system feasible in our game?

Donsig - There hasn't been a change in the document since the one I posted on Wednesday.

Everybody - I could use some help with the terminology questions raised by Rain. Please see her detail post and my response.

 

[disorganizer]

party system was denied because in party-system you cant vote for a candidate but only for the party. new citizens will never be able to be an official because they have to work to top of a candidate list of a party to be elected.
thats why dof banned them.

 

[Shaitan]

Ah! That's crazy!

I've never seen a ballot that says vote for party X or Y. You always get a slate of candidates and vote for the one you want for each position. If the ballot setup is the only reason this was disallowed, that is very easy to fix. In fact, no fixing is needed as we already poll by candidate.

 

[Cyc]

I believe political parties are a bad idea, still. We already have the underground parties existing in this game as Rain stated. There's the tea party club, the secret handshake club, the treehouse boys club, etc. Problem is, this game is still changing so much, so often, that members of clubs jump from one club to the other. There is no solidarity or concrete basis for a club (I mean political party, excuse me...). If political parties is what we eventually want to go to, we are a long way off from that point. I've said it before and I'll say it again, we need to find out who we are as a nation, before we split off into factions. Right now we need to work on "our" Constitution. Not worry about if we should vote for Dick or Jane because we want to ski behind the boat. Let's drop the power struggles and make a move to help each other move closer to one another. After we have become one and have decided which direction to go, then we can turn on each other and stab the next person in the back. (oops, sorry. A flash of real life political parties slipped in there.)

Shaitan. I'm slowly working on the latest comments about the proposed Constitution. I need a little more time.

 

[Rain]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Ah! That's crazy!

I've never seen a ballot that says vote for party X or Y. You always get a slate of candidates and vote for the one you want for each position. If the ballot setup is the only reason this was disallowed, that is very easy to fix. In fact, no fixing is needed as we already poll by candidate.

I think the reason that parties were seen as odious is because once you have them you will in fact get the results seen in british parliamentary style systems which essentially would mean that the opposition can probably go on vacation til the next election in the context of this game. That is surmise on my part - I suppose there could be better outcomes, but given the nature of the game i suspect those out of power will wither away and lose interest. It also promotes oppositional behavior which in spite of our acrimony over some subjects we generally seem to avoid on matters of substance within the game.

I think a better proposal would be prevent a member of any established group from holding office while they are a member of said group. This has a sound basis in reality as well based on conflict of interest.

Besides if your primary interest is in governance then you probaly dont have time for group activities anyway which i see (rightly or wrongly) as a means to occupy time for those not in office. I have described most of these groups as lobbies previously and i think it is the best definition still. So if you want to be lobbyist you cant be in governement and vice versa. The lobbyist can still agitate on their particular field of interest. Yet since members can't hold office they can't by definition be political parties.

So in terms of law:

1) Groups are permitted.

2) All groups are defined as lobby groups.

3) No member of a lobby group may hold a government office while a member of that group as this constitutes a conflict of interest both in appearance and fact.

 

[Shaitan]

Shaitan. I'm slowly working on the latest comments about the proposed Constitution. I need a little more time.

Take your time. We're going for quality, not speed.

Are those actual parties? I'm either deaf or undesirable as I haven't heard of any of them.

 

[Rain]

The fact you don't know they exist is why you are still alive Shaitain

 

[Shaitan]

Rain - Excellent! I've added it to the working copy.

This is the only change so far so I haven't uploaded it yet. I'll upload whatever we have before 4PM EST (21:00 GMT)

 

[Shaitan]

Originally posted by Rain
The fact you don't know they exist is why you are still alive Shaitain