Discussion about the New Constitution

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Togas

Flat out wrong???

Consider this: A Bill is proposed. You have no opinion on it either way. You abstain because you don't care if it gets passed or not.

Quorum ensures that enough people actually read the poll and gave some though to the decision.

By clicking on abstain you are saying, "I don't care if you pass it or not, but at least I read it and gave it some thought."

By counting those abstains towards the quorum we ensure that enough people actually looked at this bill and made a conscious choice to either back it, vote against it, or declare neutrality.

If it turns out that most people abstained and the bill was passed anyway, so what? More people wanted it to pass than those who didn't. That's the real measure. The abstain people are just the ones who either can't make up their mind, or don't want to on that particular issue.

--Togas

That's how I've always considered Abstain -- not a vote for "this poll is flawed", but a vote for "I'm neutral". In that case, I think Togas' reasoning's hold water, and I'd be inclined to support them. Having said that, I understand that what "Abstain" actually means is a really tough and hotly debated issue, and I'd like to hear what others think: Does abstain mean A) No opinion, B) Don't care, or C) Flawed poll? (This is addressing Reddawg's post too -- Reddawg, I haven't missed you ).

-- adaMada

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by adaMada
Ah, gotcha. Never bothered to read eewolf's thread, but you're very right -- that wasn't our focus, and I personally don't plan to bring it up if I can avoid it .

Ah, but I may not let you avoid it!

There is no better time to think about it than when revisiting our constitution!

Maybe I'll start writing RP stories from the viewpoints of citizens that are starving, were once bombarded on by us, or are our slaves.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb
2) Currently the NewCon would require a vote of the Senate to determine the outcome of a GL. I would think it would be beneficial for a standing task for a GL to exist before any turnchat/turnthread commences otherwise they would play several turns with the GL standing there doing nothing and preventing us from generating a new one while they waited for the end of the turnplay (new word got tired of typing chat and thread) to get the Senate's wishes for the GL.

Anyway, that could be addressed by a Senate Bill. I also feel we should have some prerequisites for a Senate Bill to be proposed or we may see 10 to 12 a day as there is nor requirement for prior discussion.

Missed this part of your post before.

2) That would be a senate bill, in my opinion.

Prerequisites for a Senate Bill? Anyone have any suggestions for any? I can't come up with anything that makes sense and isn't overly restrictive... I wouldn't be against the idea, but honestly have no thoughts on a good way to go about doing it.

Also, if there are any issues that someone would like to know about but are getting lost in this thread, feel free to PM me. I'll make sure that the answer is publically posted someplace so no one's out of the loop, and this thread is getting so big so fast that I can't promise to respond to every post anymore, though I will try to do my best to address every issue I see.

-- adaMada

[Hot Mustard]

Originally posted by adaMada
That's how I've always considered Abstain -- not a vote for "this poll is flawed", but a vote for "I'm neutral". In that case, I think Togas' reasoning's hold water, and I'd be inclined to support them. Having said that, I understand that what "Abstain" actually means is a really tough and hotly debated issue, and I'd like to hear what others think: Does abstain mean A) No opinion, B) Don't care, or C) Flawed poll? (This is addressing Reddawg's post too -- Reddawg, I haven't missed you ).
-- adaMada

I would say A), neutral. If you don't care, you wouldn't vote (like most real citizens). If you object to the poll, voice your objections (don't vote either).

[civman2000]

I don't like how abstains are automatically not counted except in the quorum. I think they should count for the quorum, the creator of the poll MUST specify whetehr an abstain is counted as a "no" vote or not, and if abstain wins more than 25% of the vote, regardless of what the creator of the poll said, they count as "no" votes (to avoid the 3-1-40 situation).

[adaMada]

Originally posted by civman2000
I don't like how abstains are automatically not counted except in the quorum. I think they should count for the quorum, the creator of the poll MUST specify whetehr an abstain is counted as a "no" vote or not, and if abstain wins more than 25% of the vote, regardless of what the creator of the poll said, they count as "no" votes (to avoid the 3-1-40 situation).

I could probably accept an 'enough abstains will lead to the vote not passing' solution, but I think it's important that we specify, in the CoL, what abstains count as. If we don't, it'll lead to the confusion we have now. I think Abstains shouldn't count as anything, since that makes the most sense -- if a person doesn't want the poll to pass, he should vote 'no', not abstain . The % solution might be a bit troubled too, since it could lead to people who want the motion to fail voting 'abstain' instead of no, since it'd take 50% of the votes being no to defeat a bill otherwise, but only 25% of the votes being abstain.

-- adaMada

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Points I Disagree With

Originally posted by Thud
I beleive the suggestion that an outrageous number of Senate Bills will be proposed is outrageous. If you think about it, we've always had the power to create Official Polls on any subject, there is only a change of semantics here.

You need to read it again.

To post an Official Poll you currently have to have a prepoll discussion thread BEFORE you can post a poll.

To post a Senate Bill you have to be breathing. And that qualification is a little fuzzy.

Currently polls are used for opinions and guidance. The Senate Bills take the place of MANY MINISTER POSTIONS. Everything Reddawg did, is now done by a Senate Bill. In order to spend money any Senator (which is EVERYONE who doesn't hold an elected position) just posts the bill. No discussion, no prepoll, no second, no approval needed. None. If you don't hold and elected position you can post a new Senate Bill every couple of minutes.

Won't happen? Two words:

panag and skywalker.
(nothing against them, they just post every 10 seconds)

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I have a major problem with how this Constitution intends to use abstain votes. "they will be used for quorum purposes only"

This is the exact opposite of an Abstain.

Abstain should either NOT count towards the quorum, or if they do, they should count as NO. With them counting towards Quorum, it would be possible to pass a law with 3 yes, 1 no, and 40 abstain. This is just flat out wrong.

Abstains should not count, period. Not towards Quorum #'s, not as yes, not as no. And, all polls should be required to have abstain options.

You are completely wrong UnOrthO. An Abstain by definition is "I agree to go along with what every the majority decides."

You want to call me on this? I'm a Professional Registered Parliamentarian, have 6 copies of Robert's Rules of Order Newly Revised and can start quoting Parliamentary Procedure in my sleep.

An abstain is NOT A NAY. If you want to vote nay, you vote nay. You don't need two "no"'s. Some organizations count abstain as nay AND THEY ARE WRONG. They do not understand the most basic elements of Parliamentary Procedure and its sad.

Yea means approval.
Nay means disapproval.
Abstain means you are neutral and are willing to let the others decide.

[Thud]

Which constitution? By the new one, there are only three true Ministers (with the VP being a bit of a mix). By our current -- lots more (some of which we can surely eliminate). Are you saying you prefer the current system?

Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by Thud


Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.

The three ministers are elected.

The VP is currently appointed (with a senate confirmation), as we felt that this would lead to better governments. Again, I'll let NYE/Apoc/Togas comment before I say much else, since some of them had one or two very persusasive arguements for appointment (good enough to win me from neutral to for ). If anyone disagrees with the method of appointment (post election confirmation), I will comment on that, since I was for that method over the others we considered.

-- adaMada

[Thud]

Yea means approval.
Nay means disapproval.
Abstain means you are neutral and are willing to let the others decide.

Indeed, that is exactly what abstain is. However, it is used only when there are a SET NUMBER of voters, and they are all expected to vote on a bill. We do not have this situation, as not everyone must vote, they may simply not reply to the poll. Indeed, there is no purpose to an abstain function in our case.

[Reddawg]

one thing to say, about there being a 'core group' that dominates... thats definitely true, i will not argue it. it's only natural and hard to be avoided.... but i dont encourage it. we just tend to do it, as human beings. but i can tell you its not That hard to break into the core group... you just have to put forth an effort to be involved!

[adaMada]

Re: Re: Points I Disagree With

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

You need to read it again.

To post an Official Poll you currently have to have a prepoll discussion thread BEFORE you can post a poll.

To post a Senate Bill you have to be breathing. And that qualification is a little fuzzy.

Currently polls are used for opinions and guidance. The Senate Bills take the place of MANY MINISTER POSTIONS. Everything Reddawg did, is now done by a Senate Bill. In order to spend money any Senator (which is EVERYONE who doesn't hold an elected position) just posts the bill. No discussion, no prepoll, no second, no approval needed. None. If you don't hold and elected position you can post a new Senate Bill every couple of minutes.

Any suggestion for a way around this? The Con Con is looking for feedback in general, and it'd be nice if someone could propose a solution to the problem that we can consider .

Won't happen? Two words:

panag and skywalker.
(nothing against them, they just post every 10 seconds)

It feels like I'm the only one who's posting every ten seconds right now :whipesbrow:.

-- adaMada

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thud
Let me clarify. I want the 3 'new' minister positions plus the VP to be elected. I do not beleive the constitution was clear on whether the 3 ministers were elected or not, though I assume they are.

Yes. The elections are mandated in Article VII.

We opted for an appointed VP after much debate. Partly, it came down to our memories of Trip being assisted by a VP with whom he did not have a really good relationship. Nothing against that person, but he did not enjoy Trip's faith. In fact, it could have been much worse.

If both are elected, what happens if the two detest each other and can not cooperate in any way, shape, or form? The game could bog.

We have observed the excellent results that can be achieved by an active VP and we felt that an appointed one would lead to desirable results more often.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Fortunately we have the perfect example of a case to look at abstains.

/me opens his extensive book of links

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=56344

Also known as Court Case 1.

Togas, NYE, I refuse to believe you two do not remember this, or that you thought I would have not said something on this point.

Abstains, as Thud states, are a method used when there is a defined number of voters. In such a situation it is easy to say: you need 25 votes to pass a law. If too many abstain, the law cannot pass. I argue that Abstains DO count as neutral, but should also effect the outcome of the poll.

Here with the NewCon, we have a similar oportunity. The Quorum can act as this set number of voters. Or, in a case where the total votes surpass the 25% quorum, the whole # of votes should count as the Quorum IMO.

Look at the poll I link to. Let us assume, for the sake of argument, that the Quorum is actually 29 (though at the time of it's posting the quorum would have been more like 50...). Now, you will notice the poll has attained the quorum. 19 have voted YES, 8 NO, and 2 Abstain. With the Abstains counting to quorum, the poll has enough votes. With them not counting as anything else, the poll actually passes. However, 2/3 of the quorum have NOT voted YES. In a RL situation, this poll would not pass a situation using a Quorum, or set # of votes. That is why I am against using Abstains in such a manner. If there is not enough public interest for 2/3 of the people who READ, and VOTE to vote YES, the law should not pass. This is just my opinion, however. The court has ruled otherwise, according to the statements in Case 1 for any interested, and say the Abstains should be thrown out. However, this is a very different board, a very different citizenship, and a very different group of Judges. Perhaps there is reason to change that view with the introduction of this Quorum?

[Arnelos]

Con Con,

FIRST:

I really like this new constitution on the whole. It gives a much tighter and more explicitly outlined delineation of legitimate authority on most issues. The thing I like the most is the role for the Senate... this is absolutely awesome and precisely what I was hoping for (as adaMada suggested about me in a post above in this thread ).

You guys have done some awesome work and I appreciate it

The Senate is by far, in my opinion, the best of your achievements here.

SECOND:

HOWEVER, there is ONE problem I'd like point out which I noticed repeatedly throughout the document...

In several places, especially in the section about the various ministers, there are statements that "such and such a power is under minister A or minister B" with no additional explanation... or that "if the minister A is unable to perform his duty in this regard, the power falls to minister B or minister C" without further explanation.... or that "the Senate or the President has X power"...

This is going to be an absolute nightmare for the Court. What's going to happen is that when Minister A doesn't make the decision and Minister B and Minister C disagree on what to decide, they have equal claims to the decision with a line that merely says "or" and the Court is going to have to decide which one to go with....

The most problematic are the lines that are vague, using the word "or" to refer to powers that fall to the President/Minister OR the Senate... now I could have simply missed it, but I did not find anywhere that if the Senate passes a Bill and a Minister decides something else that the one has power over the other... unless it is explicitly stated which has supremacy (or at least which has supremacy under different conditions), the Court has no basis upon which to decide who has the legal authority to make a final decision when the two come into conflict.

FURTHERMORE, while I could simply be missing the line, I didn't find a line that states that the ministers are bound by Senate Bills... it simply says that later decisions, whether Executive Orders or Senate Bills, trump earlier decisions, whether Executive Orders or Senate Bills... without explicitly establishing that the Senate Bills have supremacy (barring executive veto) over Executive Orders, you open up the possibility that the ministers can simply make executive orders reversing every Senate Bill as soon as they pass... if so, why have Senate Bills?

IN CONCLUSION:

I really love the Senate and I love how far you've come in more clearly delineating responsibility, but you need to establish more explicit rules on your cases of shared authority. Where shared authority over a power exists, the constitution needs to be explicit over which position or body has final supremacy on what if there's a conflict. There are too many "or" statements regarding powers in this constitution. Altering some of them to establish Minister A, or Minister B if Minister A is unable/unwilling (or whatever)... would go a long way to making this document even better at delineating clear lines of legitimate authority and make the Court's job less of a headache.

This issue I've raised aside, this is an EXCELLENT document.