Discussion about the New Constitution

[Thud]

The post you quoted was intended to refer to 'majority' leaders in the Senate.

However, on the issue you (apoc) addressed,I disagree. I think that someone needs to speak out and clarify Science issues. It doesn't have to be an elected position. I'm sorry if it seemed like I intended it to be an elected position. It would be appointed either as a deputy minister, or appointed by the as yet non-existant Speaker. But it should exist.

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We worked on this a long while. Many questions arise on first reading. Please read it and reread it if you wish. I believe that many things asked so far are already covered.

I hope that most of you come to see it the way the 4 of us do. It is a documnet worthy of adoption after a good discussion.

I think you did a wonderful job and created an extremely versatile and concise document as I stated in the/my first post.

I'm just pointed out possible loopholes that might need to be addressed now as opposed to after they are exploited.

[Thud]

Oh, and I know that you have provided for the creation of a Deputy Science Minister. I'm just saying that that post should exist, and perhaps it should exist outside of the executive branch.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Arnelos
While, from a practical standpoint, this is true... the constitution you wrote also doesn't PREVENT the Senate from acting on "every freaking little thing" should the time exist in which the Senate could do so...

The fact that they/we DON'T have all the time in the world will mean they/we will have to be choosy about which things to affect, but the constitution you wrote certainly provides very few limits on the enormous range of things that can be affected...

I'd like to comment on this.

In some ways, we awoke a sleeping Dragon and called it The Senate. It has teeth and breathes fire and has a whole host of checks and powers over the elected officials. It could be more of a problem than it's worth.

But then you have to think that if maybe, just maybe, it's worth it to open up the game to everyone, to get more people involved, and to make the decisions that everyone feels should be our decisions, ours. Not some elected guy who ran unopposed. The Senate creates problems, yes, but it frees us up to be an actual democracy, an Oligarchy no longer.

One thing we did consider when granting the Senate powers is that the Senate cannot act quickly. It's against it's nature as it must poll any decision and every decision must take at least 3 days, usually more. This inability to respond quickly is a limiting factor that should tame the beast to some degree, but there are other functions as well, most notably the power of the President to act on budget affairs in the absence of a Senate directive, and the ability of the Executives to Veto. Plus, several other "immeidate" decisions (like when to negotiate peace) have been left out of Senate hands.

But in the end, it will be up to the citizens who make up the Senate to make it a viable, influential, and worthwhile institution. And we are somewhat optimistic that the citzens who participate will make this body a worthwhile and respectable organization.

--Togas

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


That is not what I am exactly meaning. I am saying is that if out of those 25%, the Quorum, the majority are not YEA, then a law should not be passed. And I disagree with Ghengis's assesment of how the Abstains should count toward whatever had majority. That would mean a simple 6 yes, 5 no, and 40 abstain would result in what otherwise was a hotly contested law passing. They should not count as either yes OR no, but should either count as neutral, but effect the outcome, or be thrown out all together and not count toward Quorum. Many vote abstain just to view results, fine, let them watch, but either throw it out all together, or count it in the final tally as a seperate option, don't lump them with something else.

'That would mean a simple 6 yes, 5 no, and 40 abstain would result in what otherwise was a hotly contested law passing.'

But Unortho, if it was a hottly contested law wouldn't more people vote yes or no rather than abstain (as abstain is defined)? Or simply not vote at all in an attempt to deny quorum?

'They should not count as either yes OR no, but should either count as neutral, but effect the outcome, or be thrown out all together and not count toward Quorum.'

I'm having a hard time tracking with you here. If you do not want to effect quorum, do not vote. Simply post your disagreement with the poll.

Your proposal would make it more difficult to pass laws and deny some people the option of saying 'I don't care yes or no, but I want the issue decided so we can move on.'

That bolded bit is what decided my position on this question. You may still disagree of course.

BTW. The terms of quorum and the need to tinker with them from time to time has been addressed by:
(iii) The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution

What do you think?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Thud
However, on the issue you (apoc) addressed,I disagree. I think that someone needs to speak out and clarify Science issues. It doesn't have to be an elected position. I'm sorry if it seemed like I intended it to be an elected position. It would be appointed either as a deputy minister, or appointed by the as yet non-existant Speaker. But it should exist.

No, no, no, no. This was discussed very heavily and this is the best solution.

Deputy minister is bad. First, putting it under the executive branch allows it to remain unbaised as it might be used as a pawn if it was under the control of some other minister. Second, the ministries that exist already have enough to worry about. They don't need power over science and the economy.

The Speaker idea is completely horrible. I'm sorry, but that would lead to heavy political manipulation of technology. There needs to be a great amount of discussion about research, especially now that our own research will soon be noticably influential. Politicising techs would be a horrible thing to do. As Minister of Science I made sure the best technology for the civilization as a whole was researched. That would not always happen if a political speaker had control over the position.

The same goes for the minister of the economy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thud
Oh, and I know that you have provided for the creation of a Deputy Science Minister. I'm just saying that that post should exist, and perhaps it should exist outside of the executive branch.

Yes it should exist Thud. Right now it is really needed, and I'm sure that most any President would appoint a Science deputy. Right now.

But what about for the first 20 turns of the game? What about once we have all the techs? Do we need a constitutionally mandated position in which to park a house plant?

I do not see delegation as a problem. People are delegating all over the place in the game right now even though that delegation has had no official status and has very nearly resulted in some controversy.

[Thud]

I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Thud
I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

The senate currently has no control over technology, and for a very legitimate reason as I mentioned earlier. "(h) The President decides what technology to research next."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thud
I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

OK. I think it is a no brainer that any president would appoint one, except maybe you as pres.

Although, I would say that any of the positions that effect game play directly do belong in the executive. We need people who have the mandate to act as the game evolves.

Under the proposals before us we elect 4 of the executive. Those 4 are then ultimately responsible for the actions of all of the people they appoint to help them carry out the heavy responsibilities of actually playing the game. Boy, you people spend a lot of time turning over rocks while you play. Good job, and don't stop.

The good thing about the reduced number of elected positions is that we will actually be given choices in most of the elections, rather than government by acclamation that we currently have in many positions in any given term.

I like the idea.

[adaMada]

I agree with what's been posted on the Science Deputy. The reason the power was delegated to the Executive branch is because neutrality is important, and the power has been given to the President because we believe that the President (and his advisors) can strike the best balance between building, warfare, and other techs.

I think GodKing made a very good and sensible post that clarifies one of my chief fears -- one that most of us seem to agree on (even UnOrthO ). We don't want the Senate to go sprawling out and passing laws on every little issue. Remember, the Senate just doesn't need to pass laws on most things. Example: Deputy for Science. The power already exists in the Executive Branch (the issue of weather it should be there or not being seperate), so let the President do it -- and that doesn't need a law. To be honest, I personally feel that the Con Con is in a tough spot right now. On one hand, we have people who want to go and create a complicated party system for running the Senate. On the other, we have people worried that the game's going to implode under the pressure of hundreds of new Laws. Both are good points , but (more importantly) both are things that the Constitutional Convention has no control over -- it's up to the Senate to decide how many laws are appropriate and what laws are appropriate. Any check in the system must come from inside, and I'd strongly urge Senate leaders to keep a system closer to what we have for the first month. The reason? Quite simply, let's get the rest of the Government working before we start reforming the Senate. I'd also urge Senators who are concerned about what bills may be passed to remember that this is a seperate issue from the Constitution itself, and it is up to the senate to find a moderate and acceptable path for itself to follow.

On the Quorum issue -- I need to consider the subject more before I post again tonight.

-- adaMada

[UnOrthOdOx]

NYE, We disagree. That is obvious. I don't have enough energy to discuss it further, however. You and I have disagreed on this issue since Case 1.

I don't think a law that fails to garner enough votes YES out of the TOTAL number of voters should be allowed to pass, period. Abstains included.

The beauty of the court ruling is that it allows for someone to override that ruling by clearly posting what abstains will mean. It allows for this disagreement. If you look at EACH OF MY POLLS from that point on, you will find ALL have stated that abstains will count as 'NO'. It works for all involved. I post how I see abstains FOR THAT POLL, someone else can see it their way and post as such. It makes everyone happy.

The problem here is that no 'law' can reverse a section of the Constitution. You are essentially now dictating how abstains will be used, and providing no alternative short of amendment. Why not leave the wording in the court ruling and leave it in the hands of the poll creator to dictate how Abstains are counted? It has worked beautifully that way since that ruling. Why change something that is working?

[UnOrthOdOx]

ada, clear you box.

Make sure to get the sent items and M tracking as well.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
ada, clear you box.

Make sure to get the sent items and M tracking as well.

Will clear out enough space for five messages or so tonight, and do a big download/save/delete tomorrow .

THanks for the heads up.

-- adaMada

[Togas]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
You are essentially now dictating how abstains will be used, and providing no alternative short of amendment. Why not leave the wording in the court ruling and leave it in the hands of the poll creator to dictate how Abstains are counted? It has worked beautifully that way since that ruling. Why change something that is working?

"Abstain" now has meaning that is Constitutionally defined and absolutely clear. What is the problem? I am absolutely opposed to the idea of a flexible interpretations or letting each person decide for himself what a word means. That's absurd. The definition changes from poll to poll??

In the past, the Court had no law to determine what "abstain" means. Now it has law. In the past, citizens had different ideas of what it should mean. Now everyone will know exactly what it means to "abstain." Clarity and simplicity.

All "Senate Bills" are mandated to give only 3 options: Yea, Nay, Abstain. Each of those options has legal signifigance. NOT voting has legal signifigance too. The system is now streamlined, straightforward, and unambiguous.

--Togas