Amendment VII Ratification

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I think that REPOLL clause needs to be fixed, that's a pain in the neck and results in potential 3 week gaps between gameplay.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Well...we could amend it...

I am really trying to only patch the gaping holes in the CoL, not fix all the minor leaks. Rushing and Upgrading has resulted in much confusion this term, best to fix it. The Repolling...well, it is just an annoyance at this point.

[Reddawg]

Three weeks seems to have been a completely arbitrary time limit to put on it; and in a game where 30 turns could easily be played in that time, three weeks it obviously to much. I know we can't do anything about it now, or that it's a side issue... but if the Con Con wants to put in a clause about re-polling, I hope they make it much more sensible.

[notyoueither]

3 weeks might seem too little if it is a hotly contested issue.

The intent of three weeks is to make amendment by bludgeoning impractical. It serves as a cooling off period so that those in minority positions do not become beseiged by mobs. It serves to reduce the amount of squabbling when one side, or person, does not get what he/she/they desired from the first poll.

At this time, I see no problem with what UnOrthO has done. He is halting the process so that legitimate concerns may be addressed. Those concerns may well have been missed due to the lack of a clearly marked pre-amendment discussion thread. That in itself lends some weight to his decision.

/Edit. Ignore that last bit.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither
3 weeks might seem too little if it is a hotly contested issue.

But we have to wait three weeks before we can have a runoff between the two most popular choices for the Palace/Forbidden Palace location.

We can NEVER have a runoff for a GL unless we want to pause the game for a month. So, if there were 15 choices with one getting 12 votes, another getting 13 and 8 choices getting 7 vote each, the 13 in the majority get their wishes done and the other 68 are the minority.

So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

I agree with GF and Unortho on this all the way. The 3-week wait is effectively several centuries on our current time-table... a wee bit ludicrous (even when 3 weeks will likely be well more than a decade or perhaps 2 in the 20th century, it's still ludicrous). The game simply moves too fast... I don't think the same 5 days to hold a poll is unreasonable for the period between polls.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But we have to wait three weeks before we can have a runoff between the two most popular choices for the Palace/Forbidden Palace location.

We can NEVER have a runoff for a GL unless we want to pause the game for a month. So, if there were 15 choices with one getting 12 votes, another getting 13 and 8 choices getting 7 vote each, the 13 in the majority get their wishes done and the other 68 are the minority.

So the 3 week clause forces the Democracy game to be anti-Democracy and simply a Tyrant game.

I don't believe that run offs between two choices from a group would be considered a repoll. It might depend on who you ask.

The intent of the repolling clause is to prevent re-asking the same question, or slightly different, to get a different result.

Asking for the people to choose between 2 popular choices from the same group in a grouping poll does not seem to be re-asking a question, to me.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Arnelos


This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

I agree with GF and Unortho on this all the way. The 3-week wait is effectively several centuries on our current time-table... a wee bit ludicrous (even when 3 weeks will likely be well more than a decade or perhaps 2 in the 20th century, it's still ludicrous). The game simply moves too fast... I don't think the same 5 days to hold a poll is unreasonable for the period between polls.

3 weeks plus the 3 to 5 days for the poll is only one term of our government. Coincidence? Maybe not.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Arnelos
This is a rather amusing line when you read it and think of how worried James Madison and the other framers of the U.S. Constitution were about what they referred to as "the tyranny of the majority" found in true democracies .

HeHeHe. I wondered if you would catch that. I just got through watching the "Founding Brothers" miniseries (again) and have been in a Early Americana mode all week..........

Originally posted by notyoueither
I don't believe that run offs between two choices from a group would be considered a repoll. It might depend on who you ask.

The intent of the repolling clause is to prevent re-asking the same question, or slightly different, to get a different result.

Asking for the people to choose between 2 popular choices from the same group in a grouping poll does not seem to be re-asking a question, to me.

That's your opinion, unfortunately the constitution refers to any poll with similiar choices asking a similiar question and that effectively covers repolls.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
That's your opinion, unfortunately the constitution refers to any poll with similiar choices asking a similiar question and that effectively covers repolls.

I invite you, or anyone else to test the validity of my opinion in this matter.

[UnOrthOdOx]

The Palace polls PURPOSE was to find a few candidates for a runoff. It has served its purpose, the new polls PURPOSE would be to find a FINAL set from the public. I would make that poll if I were you, I will defend it in court if anyone cares to contest it.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The Palace polls PURPOSE was to find a few candidates for a runoff. It has served its purpose, the new polls PURPOSE would be to find a FINAL set from the public. I would make that poll if I were you, I will defend it in court if anyone cares to contest it.

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

This, of course, would make "official" polls sort of pointless except when they take on the force of law (such as when war needs to be declared). Of course, that's already halfway to being true anyhow .

(gotta a funny feeling the Con Con is thinking of changing this though, given their hinting at giving the Senate more authority to pass "laws")

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

But one set will lose and someone who supports the losing set will challenge the validity then will have to wait another 3 weeks.

Course, I have thought about making an UNOFFICIAL poll and letting the CP do what they will with the results...........

Not quite. The poll WILL BE official, the only way to mke it not so would be to have either the poll starter state it so, based on a precedence in whatever case # was filed against Uber, or for the Court to RULE it so. They can TRY to make it invalid, but I am fairly confident I can defend against such an argument.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


Not quite. The poll WILL BE official, the only way to mke it not so would be to have either the poll starter state it so,

That's exactly what I was planning on. I was going to state in the subject and the first post that in accordance with the Constitution it was an "Unofficial Poll and therefore valid to be officially acted on."

Don't you just love our constitution.