Discussion about the New Constitution

[notyoueither]

Oh I do remember Unortho. I also remember this:

Ruling of the Court in Case 1.

In resolving this case, another issue had great prominence. The Court rules that Abstain is neutral and should not be counted either for or against a decision. Where defined within the first post of a poll, that definition of Abstain (or any other term) will take precedence over this default definition. In general, the Court advises that any terms other than yes and no, which are vague or undefined, should be discounted when considering poll results.

I do not believe what we 4 have proposed is at odds with that ruling. We have clarified it a bit though.

However, to be honest I am not wed to either position. They could be 'no' or not, depending on the wishes of the people. I see the purpose of discussion here to be to gauge those wishes. The thing is not engraved in granite yet. I would like to hear from more people on this point.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Re: Re: Re: Points I Disagree With

Originally posted by adaMada

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 .


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

-- adaMada

I think the subcommittee idea would work. Have a certain number of senators on a Finance Committee who are the only ones allowed to post expenditure Bills, etc. This way people interested in specifc areas and who would hopefully be more attuned to them would be the ones submitting Bills for that area.

We could create specific subcommittees as we see an area of interest arising to prevent mass submission of bills.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I am not saying the suggestion contradicts the court ruling, NYE, I am saying that there is another possible interpretation of Abstains not available to the court at the time of Case 1 with the advent of the Quorum.

We can now have a set # of voters. Therefore, one can adequately say that there is a possibility of using abstains as a neutral option, but that X% of YES votes are needed. Should there not be 25 (or whatever 2/3 of the quorum is) YES votes, a law does not pass.

Edit - clarity

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Here's how I see it.

We have to have a specific number of voters or the bill is AUTOMATICALLY invalid, this number is set by the amount of votes in the last Presidential election.

Yea is a vote of approval of the Bill.

Nay is a vote of disapproval.

Abstain is a vote of neutrality. You agree the issue should be decided but do not feel concern between the two options.

If a quorum of the three is reached and there are enough Yea votes it passes.

To not vote is to HELP IN THE DEFEAT OF THE BILL because it makes it more difficult to attain a quorum.

You do not have to vote. Only vote if you want the issue decided. Only abstain if you want it decided by others now. If it does not pass or not enough citizens voted it is a dead issue.

If the vote is 10 yea, 4 nay, and 40 abstain. The yeas won, the abstains count towards whichever of the Yeas OR nays had the most votes. It wasn't the 10 yeas that passed the Bill. It was the 40 abstains who agreed to go along with the majority.

[notyoueither]

OK Unortho. I understand you.

Could you tell me why 25% yes is more desirable than 25% total votes cast? What you are proposing raises the bar for Senate effectiveness dramatically. It would result in a more powerful court and a much more powerful executive.

/Edit. Ghengis nailed it.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I am not saying the suggestion contradicts the court ruling, NYE, I am saying that there is another possible interpretation of Abstains not available to the court at the time of Case 1 with the advent of the Quorum.

We can now have a set # of voters. Therefore, one can adequately say that there is a possibility of using abstains as a neutral option, but that X% of YES votes are needed. Should there not be 25 (or whatever 2/3 of the quorum is) YES votes, a law does not pass.

Edit - clarity

UnOrthO,
First thing, I'm not commenting on this issue right now. It looks like it'll take a lot of thought, which I haven't put into it. My comments will also probably be private to the Con Con, since I think it's important we discuss with each other before we come out in public. Having said that...

Doesn't that system still have the problem of making it easier to overturn a law by voting "abstain" then by voting no? That would seem to be a rather major problem to me if we go with the idea of a law not passing if 25% of votes are for abstain, since it normally takes 50% of the votes to overturn a law. I'd consider that a major problem, since we could potentially find ourselves with a law loosing where the election results were 25 for, 0 against, 8 abstain.

Just thought I'd bring it up...

-- adaMada

EDIT: Ghengis's way of thinking of the voting system seems to work well for me, at first glance... UnOrthO, any comments?

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I think the subcommittee idea would work. Have a certain number of senators on a Finance Committee who are the only ones allowed to post expenditure Bills, etc. This way people interested in specifc areas and who would hopefully be more attuned to them would be the ones submitting Bills for that area.

We could create specific subcommittees as we see an area of interest arising to prevent mass submission of bills.

Yes This is precisely what I was arguing about two weeks ago when I had the chance to talk to adaMada about possibilities for the Senate (an argument he cites above ).

I think a committee system is definately a very workable way to approach this... committee memberships would be self-selecting... and the selection would be by those who truly have an interest in the issue and TIME with which to approach it. This also removes something of the idea that you have to be an elected or appointed official to make any difference in the game, something I feel very strongly about...

As for the idea above (it's a page back in the thread now, so I can't see who posted it) about creating a "Supreme Speaker" or something for the Senate, I'd be in favor of making this entirely a procedural role if it's needed at all (which I believe it is not)... the Senate Clerk is certainly an absolutely necessary position, but a Senate Speaker is not... the role of such a speaker in real legislatures is to schedule debate and legislation... I personally feel that establishing senate chat times at which the senate could pass legislation would ultimately be descriminatory toward people who live on certain parts of the Real-Life planet... I feel that FULL SENATE debates and bills must be passed in a thread manner, not a chat.

However, COMMITTEES could very well have committee chairmen who organize chat times with committee members (which would be easier with a smaller group) and make decisions at chats in order to be more responsive to short-term issues.

As regards the formation of Senate By-Laws, I would be HIGHLY INTERESTED in playing a role in that over the course of Term 5 in order to prepare for Term 6. In fact, since I believe I would like to be a member of the Senate and serve on a committee rather than as an executive in Term 6, I have an interest in helping with Senate By-Law authorship. Seperate from my duties as VP for Term 5, I could either organize or join a group which worked on the Senate By-Laws and started public discussion on our initial ideas... This is a project I'd LOVE to take on... (legislative structure happens to be a RL research interest of mine )

[Arnelos]

adaMada... please comment on my long post on Page 3... just wanna make sure you didn't miss it

[adaMada]

Well, let me go ahead and say this (in response to Arnelos' statement)...

If any senator wants to start working on/thinking about Senate rules now, I would personally have no problem with that. The rules may have to change if the NewCon changes, and the NewCon may never be passed and the rules (as such) become moot -- but we'd need to have some basic rules laid out for passing as soon as the NewCon was in action, and I wouldn't have any objection to very perliminary versions of that being looked at now, with the understanding A) The constitution may change, B) They can't be passed until the New Constitution is in effect, and C) It could be a lot of time wasted, since who knows how many revisions NewCon'll go through before it's done. (Well, hopefully not many if any , but...)

-- adaMada

EDIT: Arnelos, on your long post... I am not prepared to comment now, but have raised the issue with other members of the Con Con and it isn't being ignored .

[Duddha]

here is my bit:

first, I would like to thank the constitutional convention for its hard work and the wonderful document it has created.

I do have some complaints however.

1. there needs to be term limits on elected positions. However good a job someone is doing we don't want them doing the same thing forever. Otherwise, Togas will be our foreign affiars minister forever.

2.

(e) The Supreme Military Commander may appoint generals and deputies he or she feels necessary, and give them any and all powers he or she feels appropriate.

It should read that a minister can grant all power endowed to them by the const, not any. Furthermore, this part is already more clearly stated later in the const and does not have to be repeated in confusing language.

3.

9 In the event that there is no candidate for President, the Senate must immediately elect a President.
(a) A President so elected must immediately appoint a Vice President. The Vice President must then be confirmed by a majority of the Senate.

This just makes no sense.

4. the issue of run-off elections is not adressed.

5. I fear that with only 4 elected positions the game will become autocratic and fewer people will have incentives to participate. I believe that if there is only to be 4 elected positions the President and Ministers should be required by the constitution to create certian deputy positions to promot participation.

6. The Senate is poorly spelled out and the result will be confusion, and inaction. I fear that without any formal structure the idea of a senate will revert to the present situation of total anarchy and little action by the common man.

Supreme Speaker

The Senate should have a Speaker; in order to organize senate chats, organize senate votes and debates, and appoint my proposed Special Adviors/Committees.

This post may require an amendment, but perhaps just a bill.

Thud, we may be from different parties but we think alike. I second Thud's idea. The Speaker should be elected by a majority of the Senate. I also feel there should be a majority and minority leaders granted some minimal powers.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by adaMada
EDIT: Arnelos, on your long post... I am not prepared to comment now, but have raised the issue with other members of the Con Con and it isn't being ignored .

Excellent

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by Duddha
Thud, we may be from different parties but we think alike. I second Thud's idea. The Speaker should be elected by a majority of the Senate. I also feel there should be a majority and minority leaders granted some minimal powers.

I agree. I was thinking there should be a definition of a 'political faction" as in a set number of members required and once the definition was met that faction would be allowed to select a leader.

This Senate Leadership could make quick decisions in situations of emergency such as Great Leaders, etc and have the full backing of their faction constituancy.

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by Duddha
Thud, we may be from different parties but we think alike. I second Thud's idea. The Speaker should be elected by a majority of the Senate. I also feel there should be a majority and minority leaders granted some minimal powers.

Duddha,

I disagree...

The purpose of a legislative speaker and of majority/minority leaders in Real-Life legislatures (the model you're both drawing from) is to schedule legislation because a RL legislature can only discuss one thing at a time in full session.

That problem is irrelevant here because ANY Senator can post a poll that says "SENATE BILL" at any time and multiple bills can be debated on and passed simultaneously in different threads... as such, there is no need for a single person to schedule legislation - making the role of Speaker ceremonial at best (unless you want to give them unecessary powers they probably shouldn't have).

[Arnelos]

Originally posted by GhengisFarb

I agree. I was thinking there should be a definition of a 'political faction" as in a set number of members required and once the definition was met that faction would be allowed to select a leader.

This Senate Leadership could make quick decisions in situations of emergency such as Great Leaders, etc and have the full backing of their faction constituancy.

GF's suggestion here is more workable now that I look at it... IF (and that's a bigger if than GF's post gives it credit) Apolytonians can actually be organized into a series of distinct factions where each faction designates a leader who may represent all members of the faction, THEN it would be possible to establish something akin to parliamentary coalition politics as it exists in most European democracies... this would allow for the formation of a "government" where the "cabinet" would be composed of the leaders of a coalition of such factions which can agree to band together into a single voting bloc.... the rest of the factions would compose the "opposition", as in most European parliamentary democracies.

The BIG BIG problem with this suggestion is that it assumes that Apolytonians will be willing to group together into distinct factions/parties and that each group will delegate its decision-making voice to a single member of that group... this is far from certain.

EDIT: Because the "President" and the existing executive ministers exist in addition to the Senate, such a system would probably have to work much like the current French 5th Republic. In the French system (and the Russian one that partially models it) you have a prime minister and cabinet that are selected by the coalition government from the parliament and a President... they SHARE authority with various rules over who can trump whom on different issues... as I'm sure DAVOUT (who is French) can attest, this is can be a disastrously unproductive system... though, given Apolytonia's tendency for non-partisanship, it might work better here than in real life.

[adaMada]

I'm not prepared to comment on Senate structure, but I'd have to be opposed to some of the very complex initiatives that are being proposed here. Though we do want the Senate to organize themselves, I (at least) don't want to see the Senate turn into a complex political organization. In reality, we really don't need to change the Senate (besides some system of keeping track of laws) much from what we have now -- let's not change a ton for the sake of changing it, making the game more complex and less understandable.

** This opinion is not that of the Constitutional Convention, and is a seperate issue **

-- adaMada