Pre-ammendment discussion: Multiple-choice senate bills

[Arnelos]

Under the old Code of Laws, there were two types of "official polls" that could be conducted and rules for each: multiple-choice polls and yes/no polls.

Each time a Great Leader was produced by a victorious elite unit in our nation's history under the old Code of Laws, an official multiple-choice poll was conducted and the top choices sometimes were then voted on in a final poll.... the entire process took 3 days to less than a week and it was over with and the game moved on.

Under the New Constitution, we have not been permitted to have multiple-choice official polls, or "Senate Bills" as they are now called. As regards the situation concerning deciding what should be done with Great Leaders, this change in the rules from the old CoL has been an unmitigated disaster.

Both for the purpose of deciding on what should be done with great leaders and for any other issues where many options are available, bringing back official multiple-choice polls seems to be the logical thing to do.

I'm not saying we shouldn't do it without appropriate rules to accomodate it in the new system. Perhaps we simply do multiple-choice polls much in the same manner as two-round election systems... the first poll exists to narrow the options to two choices. The second poll is to decide between those two options.

If you want to restrict it to great leaders and other specific situations where a course of action needs to be decided upon and there are multiple options (as opposed to situations where the senate need not act), I'd be fine with that, too.

But we need true and official multiple-choice polling back for great leaders - period.

I welcome discussion on this issue in this thread.

Thank You.

[Aro]

Re: Pre-ammendment discussion: Multiple-choice senate bills

Originally posted by Arnelos

...But we need true and official multiple-choice polling back for great leaders - period.

I agree, Arnelos. You're absolutely right

[Spiffor]

I completely agree with you Arnelos It would be very much simpler and faster.

Edit, Something constructive : here is the wording of procedures in the NewCon :

(a) To propose a law, a senator (or minister under the conditions above) [added by Amendment I, 12/23/02] must post a poll that is clear, unbiased, states the proposed law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.

I think we could add a sentence in this point. How about :

Bills regarding the allocation of great leaders or the allocation of budget may be multiple choice, as long as they list all possible options, including inaction. It shall not be possible for the voter to vote for more than one option

---

Also, for this to eb complete, we would have to amend this point :

(e) To pass, the proposed law must receive more “yea” votes than “nay” votes. It must also meet the quorum.

My suggestion is to add :

If the bill requires a multiple choice poll, the suggestion with a majority becomes law. If no option gets this majority, a runoff poll must be held between the 2 options which recieved the most votes

I'm aware it will make the whole thing even more heavy, so if you have suggestions to refine this wording, please do so (after all, it is the very point of a prepoll discussion )

We also have to modify a small point :

(ii) Any “abstain” votes are considered solely for quorum purposes. “Abstain” votes may not be considered “yea” or “nay” votes, and may not be considered as any "option" vote in a multiple choice poll

What do you think ?

[roadcage]

Multiple choice polls need to be of the all you can support type to increase the chance of a decision.

Multiple choice polls should be limited to instances where the Con requires the senate to act. Any furthur attempt to define this should be avoided.

I strongly suggest that we 'think of the sausage' and do the drafting somewhere other than the forum. Believe it or not, we really have time here and need to do it right. Yes, we could get another GL in 1315, but trust me on this, the choices available will be even more limited than with Seti and atleast this Senator will be willing to accept just about all of them.

Ssgt roadcage (retired)

[E_T]

Multiple choise polls need to have the option to allow the senator to express their wished through the ability to support more than one course. This should allow the "opinion type" poll, atleast to get the general Wishes of the senate, especially on a complex Issue.

E_T

[joncnunn]

I'm strongly in support of multiple choice polls; especally if we can combine it with preference voting for instant run offs.

[Panag]

hi ,

great

, can we run a test / example

have a nice day

[joncnunn]

A sample of the standard multiple choice was the Unoffical poll on what to do with SETI.

Currently, the site doesn't seem to support preferance voting, but a sample would look like:

Rank the following with most desirable being #1, second most desirable being #2, and so forth. Do NOT repeat any numbers.

Winning via Space Race (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Winning via Culture (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Winning via Domination (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Winning via Conquest (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)
Winning via Histograph (1, 2, 3, 4, 5)

If a choice got a majority of votes for #1, that would be the choice. Otherwise, whichever choice got the least # of #1 votes would be elimated, and those people's #2 choice would be added to the others #1. If a choice then had a majority, that would win, otherwise the option with the least votes would be elimated again, with their next in line prefereances added together. The process would continue until an option got a majority of votes.

[civman2000]

Spiffor, great suggestion. One change I'd like to make:

Bills regarding the allocation of great leaders or the allocation of budget, may be multiple choice, as long as they list all possible options, including inaction. It shall not be possible for the voter to vote for more than one option. The Senate may add additional types of bills that may be multiple choice.

[Kloreep]

Looks good, Spiffor. But why not go beyond what civman2000 (I added the 2000 ) suggested, and just extend the option of multi-choice to all bills? Just let several different bills be presented, and voters vote for either one or none. That would be helpful with bills like the "Senate Organization" poll, which could have been dragged through court if one option had actually passed.

joncnunn: I'd love to have pref. voting, but it'll take a while to do it manually through poly. I think we should stick to runoffs (only one extra poll between top two).

[Togas]

Re: Pre-ammendment discussion: Multiple-choice senate bills

Originally posted by Arnelos
I'm not saying we shouldn't do it without appropriate rules to accomodate it in the new system. Perhaps we simply do multiple-choice polls much in the same manner as two-round election systems... the first poll exists to narrow the options to two choices. The second poll is to decide between those two options.

Why would we need an amendment to do this? Just have someone in the Senate post the multiple choice poll first to narrow down the options, and then post the official Senate Bill poll.

--Togas

[Kloreep]

That takes more time; a few days for the opinion poll, then three more days for the actual bill. And that holds up play if it's an important bill (like GL usage).

[Togas]

You can do an informal opinion poll and make it 2 days, then use that info to post an official senate poll (bill) for the required 3 days. That's probably the way to get it done the fastest. If you consider 5 days to be fast.

That's the thing with Democracy. It moves rather slowly.

--Togas

[roadcage]

Yes Togas, as I said long ago in a thread far away, the problem is not that the 72 hour clock is too long, but rather that the clock did not get started soon enough.

[Arnelos]

*bump*