Amendment: Code of Ethics

[Spiffor]

This is a "group" poll. We add up Yes1 and Yes2. If Yes1+Yes2 > No, then "Yes" wins. The "Yes" with most votes (currently Yes2) eventually wins the poll, even if it has less votes than the only "No".

However, this is an amendment. An amendment must be accepted by 2/3 of voters. Meaning the "yes" group must add 67% to pass. Currently, "yes" lead by a few votes, but not enough to amend the constitution.

Edited for clarity

[GodKing]

Once the ammendment is written (if it is written) then it must pass by 2/3. For now, the concept of moving forward in this direction a simple majority should suffice.
Yes (a & B)
No (c)

[Apocalypse]

Ethics should not be forced upon us. If they aren't in the consitution, then they could play a part in daily politics and keep this game interesting.

[OPD]

Hmmmmn

I knew that I should have read the constitution before trying to be a smart alex.

[Spiffor]

GodKing :
You might find this poll flawed, but this is a poll for amendment (as tated explicitely in the title of the thread, and in Trip's first post).
There's currently a debate on how to include ethics (if ethics must be included at all), and several solutions have been given : inclusion in the constitution, each party develops its own ethics, each minister develops its own ethics etc.
This very poll is about including ethics in the constitution. That's why it need a 2/3 vote.

[Jon Shafer]

Thank you muchly Spiffy, first for reading, and second for explaining.

As he has said (and I tried to comment on, but I submitted my reply, Apolyton hiccuped, and my post got lost in 'the place'), it's an amendment, if certain things are to be required of our conduct. Nothing specific yet, but if we are to be required to do something, then it has to be an amendment. If it's not required, then it's not in the Constitution. And that's all this poll is asking: should we be required to have a Code of Ethics that must be followed?

As far as the poll, I've gone over many times how the grouping system works, check out my polling addition to the Constitution if you're not sure how it works.

[iain]

i take it that the outcome of this poll is YES with 18 votes,
am i correct?

[Jon Shafer]

Yes, that is correct. But like Spiffy said, since it's an amendment it needs at least 2/3 of all votes to pass, not just 51%.

[iain]

fair enough, however that is not to say ethics cannot cme into play. someone disagrees with an action on grounds of ethics they can vote against it.

[Kuciwalker]

How do ethics and government mix? Aren't they mutually exclusive?

[GePap]

Link with Parties

I made this suggestion in the ethics thread, but I will make it again:

Even if a constituionaly binding code of ethics oes not pass, as it seems unlikely, the individual political parties may write their own party platforms on the issue and post those. Thus, those that want a moral game can make thier choice felt in the ballot box if not on the constitution.

[Robber Baron]

I say no to a constitutional code of ethics. Constitutions should frame government on a structural level (e.g, responsibilites and powers of ministers). Concepts like code of ethics should be determined democratically and organically, in the stream of play.

[ManicStarSeed]

Originally posted by Robber Baron
I say no to a constitutional code of ethics. Constitutions should frame government on a structural level (e.g, responsibilites and powers of ministers).

I agree but..

The US banned slavery in its constitution, and established universial sufferage, as well.

The amendment should only state that we will play with ethics as defined in a seperate list such as....

Respect each other
Never play ahead
Our word is our bond
Slavery for/against
To raze or not to raze
etc...

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Concepts like code of ethics should be determined democratically and organically, in the stream of play.

I agree.

Just imagine when we need to figure out if we want to build universal sufferage or some other GW and we get into the ethical debate over it

I like idea of the various parties posting their ethics that its members subscribe to. I am an Indy, so understand that my ethics would not be represented on an instituional level. that would be OK. I have my own voice.

Organiclly develped code of ethics is about right. I do feel that to do it right we nee a "living, growing document" stating our current ethics. It should be reviseable by 50% votes, no more than twice in an administration.

My 2 cents

Mss

[Kuciwalker]

There should be no document. If it is a thread-level thing, everyone will just sort of "know" about it.

[Robber Baron]

Manic:
Good point about the U.S. Constitution.
Although it bears pointing out that as originally conceived, the U.S. Constitution allowed (indeed codified, though indirectly) slavery. And sufferage was not universal. (Originally, it was based on state requirements; and most states only allowed property holders to vote.)
So again, this stuff tends to emerge/evolve organically, as it has in the U.S.
As we are now positioned, we aren't ready to live by sweeping ethical proscriptions.