What does WOTP mean?

[classical_hero]

here is a discussion that started in the Judicary thread, but by request of the CJ, all posts that are on this issue will also be put here.

may it pleas the court to find out what the WOTP actually means. Does the WOTP mean that the option that has the highest percentage, even though it is less that 50%+1? Does that mean that the WOTP include those options that are above as part of the majority? An example of this is when you got some choice from an affirmative answer that includes many options, but because they are split over that choice and that mean that even though the affirmative has more votes than the negative, and yet out of all the single options, the negative has the most votes. What can be done in that situation? I think that we need to upgrade our laws so that the WOTP is better handled.

Regards, your Trade Deputy, acting in his role as a citizen, Classical Hero.

This is the CJ's reply. He quotes my initial response.

The will of the people means the will of the people. Period.

No mathematical problems have to pop when determining the will of the people. If you, as a leader, want to post a poll, it's up to you to interpret the results. So if there are 3 yes options all with 5 votes (so basically 15 supporters) and 1 no option with 10 votes, my logic says that the supporters won. But once again, that's only poll interpretation.

I must warn though, that in the light of any possible future CCs, the minister interprets the poll, instead of only posting the results in the Turnchat thread, and leaving the President basically without guiding.

So in my opinion the WOTP doesn't have to be better handled by law. It's up to the official to determine this 'will'. This can be based on both the polls and the discussion. As long as you post a clear instruction in the Turnchat thread!

note that this is not a judicial review. It has not been included in the docket, and the above can be read as the opinion of myself as a citizen. If this is not enough, please consider requesting a judicial review.

This is a perfect example of a question regarding a certain piece of law, where no official JR procedure have to be followed. I also encourage citizens to approach the Court without hesistation if there are any question about our law.

This is my reply to him. I qupte him in my reply

According to this then, it becomes the Will Of The Minister(WOTM) then. Isn't the job of the poll to find out what the WOTP is? If the poll is only about the options that tie, then maybe we could repoll with only those options there to remove. But this would push back the TC so that is not an option. I would push for preferencial voting, to solve this issue. This would require a change in the Constituion to make it possible.

I will go back to the last CC as a case in point. Because of the three-way tie there were three possible options that the minister (in this case, the Justices,) could chose from. This could have been very differet because as I was the las voter on the poll, I had alot more power given to me than any citizen should ever have. Fortunately, my vote made it a three-way tie, rather than a two-way tie, with the option being impeachmen or no punishment. Had I chose to go with impeachment, then that would have created a constiutional crisis because it was made clear by a fellow moderator that he would not accept that option since it was not the main consensus. Had I chosen to vote no punishment, then despite of the majority deciding that punishment was best, then the WOTP would not have been followed, but these are the rules in the constiution. Since I was a voice of reason and voted for a warning, which does seem to be the opinion of the Justices. This is my fear that if the poll are always close, then it will turn out to be the WOTM, and not the WOTP. What would have happened if the vote went for impeachment and yet this was not accepted?

Here is the CJ's reply.

I will not go in detail about possible other outcomes of the poll. I am happy this is settled like this, and I hope other cases will be less tense than this one.

I don't agree with your suggestions about WOTP/WOTM. I believe in a system where the minister is chosen in the first place. Thus, he has a mandate from the citizens to act with a certain freedom. If the official deems it necessary, he polls certain important questions among the citizens.
If the WOTP is not followed properly, the official will have problems being re-elected. That way the WOTP is settled.

EDIT: If more citizens want to have a discussion I suggest to move the discussion to the 'citizens sub-forum'. I am a supporter of a discussion about the interpretation of the WOTP, but preferably not in my office . I want to thank classical hero for starting this discussion.

I put the bits in bold. I respect that and this my response to that.

The point with voting is that you are not supposed to look at the results before you vote. Therefore, assuming everyone would have voted the same way, the order of voters makes no difference and everyone's vote counts equally. If someone votes just to make the poll weird rather than their true feelings it's only their disadvantage.

I also agree that since the ministers/judges are elected they are given a mandate that allows them to ...basically... do as they please. If it obviously goes against the wotp (a poll or such) then it can be dealt with immediately (see CT's case for instance). If The WOTP is gradually and less obviously violated, it will be reflected in the next election.

I reply to the PD KCCrusader and quote him

I didn't look at the vote before I voted. I voted for a warning because that is what I thought was the suitable punishment. Often the option I have vote for has been the least popular option.

Edit. I will put all the relevant quotes on the citizen forum to have a better discussion.

Other citizens, please discuss this important Issue.
Regards, Classical_Hero, your Trade Deputy, in his citizen's shoes.

 

[Chieftess]

Will of the People.

 

[classical_hero]

Will of the People.

It is more than just that. I was more about how we are to properly implement the WOTP so that it really means that.

 

[Rik Meleet]

The Will of the People is very very hard to determine and nearly impossible to define. It is the office-holder's responsibility to determine the WOTP and create his / her instructions on that.

I see no other way to do this in a different way than is currently done. The office-holder starts a discussion. Out of that discussion a number of options are expressed and the office holder posts a poll on it.

But is that really tjhe WOTP or is that the "Will of the active people" ?? Or even: "The will of the majority of the active people" ? And what is the WOTP ?? Can you define that ? -> no.

For those reasons the phrase "Will of the people" is removed from the Constitution. And office holders are only urged to determine the WOTP; it is not very bad if they don't succeed in determining the WOTP. No-one objects if the winner of a poll is chosen, even if it isn't certain it is really the WOTP.
However, if the office-holder goes against the poll-result or has a un-conventional way of interpreting poll-results, that person can be sure (s)he will loose a large group of voters in the next election(s).

 

[blackheart]

WOTP - is it a majority of the people or a plurality?

That's basically the question I think.

 

[classical_hero]

WOTP - is it a majority of the people or a plurality?

That's basically the question I think.

That is what I want the discussion to be about. I was wondering if there was a better way to find the WOTP.

 

[Inter4]

WOTP is normally the majority IMO