Discussion about the New Constitution

[Aggie]

Originally posted by Apocalypse

Don't forget Trip is going to run for SMC soon. It isn't like Aggie's position will be safe for all time. Not that Aggie wouldn't always be a great SMC, it is just that he will be challegened in the near future.

This is an excellent document and though I have a few reservations, on the whole . I also agree with apoc, lets not immediately before the New CON is done create the science ministry, if a prez doesn't feel up to it he can appoint a minister. Now to answer questions.
The thought of me,trip and uber in 1 race might be enough to get me to run for SMC next time, though I am leaning toward Pres.
This election is not even over and we are talking about the future. I don't know if I will run again, to be honest the grind of giving orders day in and day out and thinking about what to do in each situation can take up much time. Though even under the current COL I still have another term left after the one I am running for(Yes since I was just a "deputy" I could effectively be SMC for 4 terms). However it is very rewarding and good for problem solving and RL coping so it has its advantages. Still my management style rarely would lead to deputies with great power since I like to have full final authority and exercise it( I figure if I can manage all my forces in my game, why can't I manage all the forces in this game). I have created deputies for the naval/exploration area since this is a general area and one where long range plans are doable. So for those concerned about exploration it will be handled as best as I can see as it now is, with a deputy smc. I do suspect these two wise people might end up being "defacto deputies" for land operations if I can't make a chat. I would still make orders but they would respond to any unforseen items(after an indepth course of Aggie tactics). However as far as having deputies who run a front or offense or defense I suspect that will not be forthcoming.
Aggie

[Togas]

Originally posted by Duddha
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.

What's so wrong with that?

But seriously, I'm approaching this term as my last term. I'd rather retire from office on a high note than be beaten out of office with a mob. I figure I'll retire and spend more time managing my lousey Jungle Ball team (the Great Banana knows they need it), perhaps volunteer as a deputy for someone, get appointed as a Judge, or become a Talk Show Host. Who knows. The nice thing is our NewCon doesn't force me or any good Minister to leave office. We either leave of our own accord (much prefered) or get forced out by an angry mob of voters.

--Togas

[WhiteBandit]

I agree with no term limits. There is no reason someone should be forced out of office. We preach on and on about how we should make everything democratic. Well then be democratic and vote someone new into office if you are tired of them! I don't see how a term limit makes it fair for anyone.

No matter how good of a job Togas has done, he doesn't have a mandate to automatically win the next election that comes around. If someone were to run against him, you have every right to vote for that person instead of Togas. So does everyone else. It is up to the candidate to convince people he is better than an incumbent. We shouldn't have some "crutch" in place just so this candidate has a "fair" chance at running since Togas would no longer be in office.

Not having term limits is perfectly fine.

[DAVOUT]

Splendid work.

It at least reveals a fantastic contitutionnal interest among the Apolytonian people !

I have hardly three small things to add :
- I would not support the appointed VP to participate in a coalition vetoing a Senate bill;
- the veto could be used only on Senate bills dealing with matters on which the government has powers;
- the veto must be motivated.

[DAVOUT]

Since Arnelos mentionned the French governmental system, it has provided exactly what it was made for, that is a government stability badly lacking before, since the average duration was lower than 6 months between 1946 and 1958. The cost of it looks small in comparison of that tremendous improvement.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
- I would not support the appointed VP to participate in a coalition vetoing a Senate bill;

Does the provision for a confirmation vote for the VP selection effect your views?

[Apocalypse]

Because of VP is approved by the senate, there is a protection against the pres putting a lacky in there. If you don't like the VP nominated, don't approve him.

[adaMada]

I'm relieved to see that things have slowed down a bit -- I was worried about how many posts I'd have to read coming home .

Again, I'd echo the statements of NYE and Apoc in saying that I don't feel it's an issue due to the Vice President Confirmation vote. The people have to approve, or the canidate can't be selected.

The second idea is interesting, and I'd have to consider it before I comment any further.

Are you saying there must be a reason for the Veto? If so, how would you enforce that clause? Let the court decide if a reason is worthy of veto?

-- adaMada

Originally posted by DAVOUT
Splendid work.

It at least reveals a fantastic contitutionnal interest among the Apolytonian people !

I have hardly three small things to add :
- I would not support the appointed VP to participate in a coalition vetoing a Senate bill;
- the veto could be used only on Senate bills dealing with matters on which the government has powers;
- the veto must be motivated.

[Togas]

Please help

I'm so glazed over now with the document after dealing with it for so long that I probably wouldn't even notice a typo.

If you discover any minor errors, grammar, spelling, or potential loopholes, you can post them or PM them to me. I'll be making the FINAL draft of the New Con prior to it being presented for official ratification. I'd like to clean up anything before then.

Thanks.

--Togas

[adaMada]

Re: Please help

Originally posted by Togas
I'm so glazed over now with the document after dealing with it for so long that I probably wouldn't even notice a typo.

If you discover any minor errors, grammar, spelling, or potential loopholes, you can post them or PM them to me. I'll be making the FINAL draft of the New Con prior to it being presented for official ratification. I'd like to clean up anything before then.

Thanks.

--Togas

Togas,
Did you see the issue I brought up in my e-mail?

I'll try to comb through it once tonight for the really minor stuff that wasn't worth mentioning before. Come on people, let's get this thing rolling -- I know I can't wait .

-- adaMada

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by Togas


"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

While I respect the desire to have the definition public, I still disagree with the proposed definition.

You seem to be counting on people actually refusing to vote in order to deny Quorum to promote your 'I don't care, just decide and move on' interpretation. I do not believe people will refuse to vote. They cannot easily watch the outcome that way. Abstains allow for them to watch without effecting the outcome, and therefore should not be counted IMO.

I must ask:

1. Why should abstains count towards Quorum? If the vote truly does mean 'I don't care, decide and move on' then explain to me why people who do not care should effect the poll.

2. If Abstains count for Quorum, they should also count in tabulating the final vote. Why should we make it so easy to pass a law? I see no 2/3 needed. If we can't gather 50% of whomever votes yea, nay, or abstain, is that law truly in best interest of the majority? And, if a law cannot gather Quorum simply from it's Yea and Nay votes, are the people truly interested?

The only argument I have heard for counting Abstains towards Quorum is that it ensures enough people have read the law. I am saying that we should ensure that enough people actually CARE enough about the law to voice an opinion, that is all.

We disagree, fine, those things happen. Now, I will await your responses, but do not intend to continue the debate any further.

And, no one responded (or I totally missed it if they did) to my question why it was not required for the Senate or SMC to have a say in peace talks. (It is only required for EITHER the SMC OR the President to agree)

The Senate declares war, why not peace, and current CoL requires that the SMC has a say in peace dealings, Why was that changed?

just looking for reasoning, no particular beef with that portion.

[jdd2007]

i dont have the time to read this thread, but a quick look at the constitution itself confirms my worry about naval units. the smc has implied power over them, and i dont have a problem with this, but it should be specifically stated in the constituition. what do you think?

[Togas]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
We disagree, fine, those things happen. Now, I will await your responses, but do not intend to continue the debate any further.

I'm sorry, Unortho, that you disagree with our rationale and definition, but we have explained it to you in the previous threads. As you said, there's no reason to continue the debate any further.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
And, no one responded (or I totally missed it if they did) to my question why it was not required for the Senate or SMC to have a say in peace talks. (It is only required for EITHER the SMC OR the President to agree)

That issue was a time-sensitive one that we felt was important, but not important enough to hault play and allow a week to debate. Agreement of 2 out of 3 was sufficient to get the job done.


Not every comment has been responded to, but Ada is trying to address them all. There's a lot of comments. Most of us just picked out particular ones we felt strongly about and talked about them. I don't feel that we're required to talk about every compliant, but I know that we want to discuss some of them, and defend the document as it is currently written.

Ada made a great point, and I'd like to quote him here:

Personally, I understand that not everyone agrees on everything, but I think it's a solid document that addresses most concerns, and we CAN'T put out something that everyone'll like. No way it'll happen . As such, we've gotta ask you to understand that each of us have made compromises in writing this document and you may have to consider others points and the eventual affect on the game as well, in deciding if a given issue is worth striking the whole Constitution for.

Bottom line: This document is the result of compromise. It does not perfectly reflect ANY of our Ideal Con, as each of us had a different idea view of what the New Con should be. But we came to an agreement over this after much debate and revision. It's got all of our ideas in it (and we're most vocal about defending our own ideas )

But all four of us agree that this final product it the right thing for our nation. We all feel that it is a vast improvement. We all hope that the citizens will agree.

--Togas

[UnOrthOdOx]

I agree that it is a VAST improvement, if not with the interpretation of Abstain.

When you really look at it, we have held hundreds of polls, of all of them, I can think of exactly TWO where Abstain and/or Quorum would have had any effect on the outcome. It is not something to get so bent out of shape over. It seems that I am the only one here objecting to that portion, so I will drop it and do whatever I can to speed this into practice as it is a superior document, and will lead to a superior experience in game.

[notyoueither]

UnOrthOdOx, I salute your good nature and desire to improve things.

re your question on the making of peace...

As things stand, the FAM has sole control over making peace. 'The Foreign Advisor is granted the power to make peace...'

We felt it good to modify this and we did. As you have pointed out, he would now need either the President or the SMC to agree. That means he controls the timing. Peace cannot be made without his approval. I do not think we wished to give the SMC a veto over it though. If we required the SMC's approval, that is what it would be.

Why not the Senate? We did not wish to slow down the playing of the game too much. As it is proposed, we must stop the game to declare war in some circumstances. We did not feel it necessary to stop again for peace. We felt that the FAM, SMC and President should be familiar enough with our war aims that they could make the decision.