How should the constitution be amended ?

[civman2000]

It is very clear: 80.83% of the voters are on the far ends of the specturm. One supports power for the people and a more flexible constitution, and one supports a system in which the rulers control the rules and it is very hard to change them if the need should come up.

You choose which one you think will lead to a better Apolytonia.

[notyoueither]

Group A : A majority vote (51%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment

A wise democracy protects itself from the whims of tyrants.

[Timeline]

bump

[jdjdjd]

If a rule has already been voted on and put in place, obviously we all had thought about when we voted the first time...than a simple majority should not be enough to over turn it. Just like impeachment should be, we voted the guy in, we should just not be able to pull the plu without a clear majority. It should be 2/3's or more, than only those rules that clearly are a problem once in practice will be changed, and not every rule every time the mood strikes. This also makes the weight of any rule in the constitution heavy.

[Panag]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Group A : A majority vote (51%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment

A wise democracy protects itself from the whims of tyrants.

hi ,

two thirds or four fifths should be more democratic , ....

have a nice day

[Kuciwalker]

The AAACC3's position is that there is not and never should be a constitution in the first place. Case closed.

[Panag]

Originally posted by skywalker
The AAACC3's position is that there is not and never should be a constitution in the first place. Case closed.

hi ,

many people feel otherwise , ....

why would you say that , .....

have a nice day

[civman2000]

skywalker: i disagree. Even though we dont like it, we cant stop there from being a constitution. AS leader of the AAACC3, i say we support 51%, people can post polls

[Kuciwalker]

Ok, I've changed my opinion to follow that of civman.

[Pythagoras]

Originally posted by Trip
I really think such things should be up to the Ministers to submit, being that they're the most well-informed bunch of people here in this community, which means they'll know the most about what's going on, and what ought to be changed. A regular citizen can bring up the option, but it should be a Minister's job to actually make it into a real amendment. Besides, our Constitution is going to be only a list of a few rules, there won't be that much to change. Oh yeah, I also say 2/3 because that keeps too many things from being changed/added without a super-majority.

As a government that supposes to derrive from the people, constitutional changes should also be confirmed by the people. Otherwise you guys could ammend yourselves into power forever.

[Jon Shafer]

I didn't say that only ministers should be allowed to vote on an amendment, just submit an amendment. That's not too hard to do.

[ThePlagueRat]

Originally posted by Trip
I didn't say that only ministers should be allowed to vote on an amendment, just submit an amendment. That's not too hard to do.

Well, in that opinion it should be tough for them to do such radical changes!
Ok, needs extensive public support... 66%, I say.
NB: Is the current const. fully legitimate?

[notyoueither]

Yes Trip, we are all becoming aware that you favour all real power being held by ministers. Left to the people will be to vote like sheep.

[Jon Shafer]

And I know that you hate me and my policies NYE, just be sure not to vote for me next time.

[Panag]

Originally posted by Trip
And I know that you hate me and my policies NYE, just be sure not to vote for me next time.

hi ,

mr. president , that could backfire in you re-election , ....

have a nice day