Damn the Polls! We need a Legislature.

[Micaelus]

I would have to agree with the statements along the lines of..."WE" are the legislature. There is no need for another body. With the number of people we have there really is no need. All that would happen would be limiting those who can vote and those who can just be the squeeky wheel in the posts.

Perhaps, however, these 'votes' or poles should be considered more highly...and actually be considered the voice of Apolytonia. A quorum could be established...a certain % of membership votes, than the vote is official and must be followed by the execs, or the Justices step in. Just a thought.

[Harovan]

Re: Damn the Polls! We need a Legislature.

Originally posted by GePap
Not long ago, a poll about embassies was created, whether we should begin them or not. The majoriy voted aganst them.

This is untrue. Group 1 (Yes to embassies) got 32 votes summed up, Group 2 (No) got only 21. The grouping was clearly described in the initial post. The poll was closed with a clear 60% approval to open embassies without further polls.

On topic: I don't think we need more cluttering of the game. I would highly appreciate, if the ministers had the power to decide without polls, but I'm afraid, that many of our citizens wouldn't like this.

Again: No extra legislative. The people or Apolytonia are the senate.

[disorganizer]

You could see the citizenry in total as legislative.
We can consider running a citizen poll as a kind of "senate decission". Yes, it takes longer, but also yes, it will keep people at the game.
If you bring down in game decissions to just the ministers, nobody would ever be interested in playing this game (except the ministers, of course).
I would propose to all who wish this to wait for PTW if they want to play a 6-person game of civ3 ;-)

The sense of the demogame is to have discussions and polls about the game decissions. This also means even uncomfortable and maybe even senseless decissions for the game itself HAVE to be followed ;-)

[GePap]

First, thank you Sir Ralph for clarifying on the embassy poll.

Second: to the issues of complexity and "we are the legislature":

We, the public, have no power to influence game decisions unless a minister creates a poll. We might discuss like a legislature, but in the constitutional framework, we have no real power, only the power a minister chooses to give the populace. We are like a senate, but without the ability to pass laws

On laws, and the constitution. I think it adds complexiy, not lowers it, to have every change in policy (law) have to be codified in the constitution. In no real system does the constitution spell every law out. Constitutions contain frameworks, legislatures create laws, which can change with time, regardless of the constitution. I find it far more tedious, slow, and complex to have to get a 2/3 apporval for every change in the 'law'. I think that a legislature would mak it easier, not harder, to create basic 'law' that can be followed over time (such as, should we upgrade the am to new patches, yes, no?) that probably has no need to be in the constitution.

I have been thinking of a simple system with three branches, an this is what I came up with, for a system with under 20 active participants, as compared to about 13-15 today (ministers and judges):

A smaller executive: 5 people , president and four cabinet member: War, State, Treasury, Interior. All the different cabinets would be integrated into those four. Historan wod stil be independent, but the historian is not really part of cabinet anyway.

The court: 5 people.

The legislative: 8 at most, with the VP being the head of the senate.

Division of jobs: The cabinet would act the same as today, making the turn by turn decisions in the turnchats. The legislative would take ove the role of polling and of making decisions like embassies or not, more ships, less ships, blahhh. They are the group that makes overal popupar decisions legally binding on the ministers, so that ministers would no longer control polling. This group also handles juridictional battles, like whether Trade should be under treausry or State, or who controls 0 attack units at what times, and who takes over when someone missing from turchats. These sorts of decisions can varry over time at the whimms of the people, as they should, since with time matters would change. The courts decide by looking at the constitution, when any of the other two groups have overstepped their powers, whether cerain actions can be demanded of ministers, certain polls were legal, how uch inof these gov. members must provide to the citizens, so forth.

Firts, with less ministers, we can perhaps have less problems in the turnchats. It is a balance, since with only four, one missing is important. At the same time, it raises the standards for ministes, so that only the most dedicated will apply. Also, tunchats might go faster. Second, with polling removed from ministers and laced in the legislature, depending on how the legislature is structured, it might be easier for a citizen to be able to get a poll made official on matters they care about. It also opens up a new an different venue of debate which wll have an impact on the actual playin. It also more clearly defines the court, which at the current state might take on legislaive roles, since it full boundaries are unclear. I mean, we haven't even decided if the court should function under an Anglo-Saxon system of precedent or a more code based mode of decisions. A third branch might make it clear were all the powers lie. And finally, not that many more people would be needed. Is 20 max active participants too much to ask? I mean, that many rarely ever trn out for the turnchats anyway.

[GodKing]

We are the senate (or whatever you wish to call it).

The ministers are elected to make their decisions. If they choose to post a poll, it is mearly a methodology of them choosing to become informed of the will of the people (us). Whether they choose to follow such is up to them. If they do not, then they will not be reelected. Simple.

[GePap]

Godking: BY the very fact that ministers need not listen to us, the notion that we are the senate , or, a legislative body, is shown false. The Roman Empire had a senate, but it had no real power, and so to call the Roman empire a Republic would be false.

We can always elect people out for whatever reason. But, first, we don't have that many candidates, since we don't have enough active participants to trully always fill our posts and once the summer end, this will only get worse, and sesond, this does no address the simple question of LAW MAKING. Is the constitution the only code of law we will have? What then belongs in the constitution, and what does not. Just recently two new questions have been brought up: about a census, and about how many posters voting makes a post legal. Neither is addressed in the constitution. Wil we have to have a new official post to the constitution to decide? Why not then have a legislative body. We ant one to interpret law (court), but we don't want one to make law? remember that 'we' can't actually make law, no matter how much we debate, and only ministers can create officla polls. Two months might be too lon for some decisions to be made.

[jdjdjd]

somehow, this and jdd2007's thread about a census are related.
could the lefislature be those that vote, and all other citizens who signed up and disappeared or don't vote, be the genl public?

I am actually part serious.

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think we need an elected legislature, but rather more an official list of active members, and only these people can vote on certain things.

[Kloreep]

GePap, you keep saying that we the people (and also we the legislature, IMNSHO) do not make laws. Yet, we are the ones who have control over the passing of laws, even if your average citizen may not propose amendments. We are the ones who create laws. So long as it passed with a 2/3rds majority, we could rule that all members must attend turnchats. There's no way we could enforce it and nobody would follow such a law, but we do have the power to propose and pass any and all amendments we wish to. How, then, are we restricted from making laws?

As for the legislature, I think it would decrease participation. Aside from elections and impeachments/removals, amendments are the only other power the people have. And since elections only come once a month - and impeachments will hopefully come much less frequently - there would be nothing for the general citizenry to do.

[GePap]

Jdjdjd: I agree with your comment about voting and citizenship. Another system, besides the one I explained earlier (thought I still think we need to shrink the cabinet down, no matter what) is to make al registered and accounted for members part of a Parliment. These individuals would have the vote. Lists of voters (though not of their choice) would have to be made public at anyones request to verify that only members voted, or if voting could be resricted to members that would be better.

But beyond voting is the issue of introducing legislation. Only legislation introduced can pass, which means that those that control the introduction of official polls control Law Making. I strongly believe that this cannot be left to the executive branch, and would also be wrong for the court to have this power. This leaves , in my view, two options: Either have a branch of gov. dedicated to this, or, allow for a mechanism in which all citizens can do it. I think the best way to have this second option would be one of official pettitions.

Anyone, and everyone (so elected officials can't act on their own in official poll creation) would have to come up with a thread labelled PETTITION: for whatever. In the first post, they explain their case, then, all posting in such a board is resticted to only signature: that means tat if you agree, you post a Yes, or agree, or another form of affirmative, without there being a simple poll vote. If ten citizens agree for any old matter, or twentyfive for a constitutional change, then the question automatically becomes an official poll and en official poll thread is begun. No pettition would be needed to start elections, which the president would contitnue to handle as was done before. Anyone could begin unofficial polls, following rulings of the court, to their hearts content. In this manner, we, the general group, would become what som claim we already are, the legislature.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by GePap
But beyond voting is the issue of introducing legislation. Only legislation introduced can pass, which means that those that control the introduction of official polls control Law Making. I strongly believe that this cannot be left to the executive branch, and would also be wrong for the court to have this power.

This is already covered in the constitution. Any citizen can introduce legislation, official position or not:

Amendments to this Constitution can be submitted by any member of our nation. An amendment is passed and made official by a 2/3 or greater vote on the amendment's inclusion.

[GePap]

Well, the question no one has answered is: Is the constitution the only Law we have? All the issues on Polls and what constitutes a valid one, something like the embassy poll, or voting on war plans, so forth. I dont think any of that needs to be codified into the constitution: its a waste of time and space. At the same time, does this mean that the citizentry can only place limits on minister actions every two months (elections) or by changing the constitution? I think that we need another level of law, one more maleable, more responsive to the whimms of the public, but not set in stone. I mean, are we going to be ammending the constitution every week?

Some are comlaining that all we have up right now are constitutional debates and not enought about the game. Well, I would say that this is because we have to go out and change our whole system wen we wish to implement a minor change. What about then, creating a more fluid system in which all these legal questions can be answered as part of the game, not separate from it?

[Spiffor]

Edit :
wrong thread.
Anyways, I agree with Gepap we need a more maleable code of laws, and we should keep the constitution for its original purpose : be "the rules of the rules", i.e how should decision be met, and what are the values of Apolytonia (I think the chart of funadmental rights has is place in the constitution, while I think the procedure of the judicial system shouldn't, but should be part of a separate text)

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by skywalker
I don't think we need an elected legislature, but rather more an official list of active members, and only these people can vote on certain things.

Skywalker, the active members are the only ones who vote on anything anyway. So no 'list' should be necessary, and this would vioate the bill of rights (when it passes) too.

Kman

[Kramerman]

I'm not fond of the 2 party system, but this division exists becausethere is one important debate in Civ3 : builder or warmonger.

Then there are those of us that are a healthy balance of war and building.