Constitution : state the [TBA]s

[vondrack]

Originally posted by delmar
This is a good observation. Are we saying then that "the president can't go against the majority of the senate but he can go against the majority of the voters (up to a certain limit)"? I have to point out that this still implies that the president is above the rest of the citizens (or doesn't it?), which is not necessarily bad just needs to be understood by everyone.

Well, yes, that's what we say, at least IMO. The President has (even without the veto) a greater power in this regard, but at the same time, he has a greater responsibility, because he will be blamed (and perhaps later deprived of his power), if he does something against the will of many and fails. OTOH, even following the "voice of the people" may sometimes be wrong or not optimal, at least. That's how it works in RL, too - it is up to the President to stand up to the challenge. (Note: and that's why I, as the VP, feel free to play our turn prior to the 18-hour period being over only when there is actually nothing to decide).

It is actually a consequence of that we say that to enforce a plan/notion, at least [TBA] part of the team must want it (preventing "a terror of evil, yet active minority" ). Otherwise, the President may do as he sees fit. The next elections will show what others thought about his deeds.

Originally posted by delmar
And I assume we expect him to do it ASAP. Is that right? If so, I still think that this approach might result in a situation where the information changing a lot of people's opinion might come too late simply because the president already proceeded as outlined in the binding vote.

Yes, such things may happen. Such is the life. It will be up to the President to decide, whether he consciously disobbeys a binding poll, actually executing his right to "prevent harm to Legoland" or not.

[lmtoops]

I understand the person playing the game (P or VP) are allowed greater power. As Tiberius showed, the constitution states,

When the wishes of the Ministers do not come to the President in time, or are harmful due to changes in game, then the President can act on his/her own in the best interest of the Legoland team.

In the States, the President acts accordingly. It's call an Executive Order. This helps in RL timeliness and in other RL difficulties.

I think this power is understood by the citizens. When (if?) the constitution is appoved, the power will be official.

[delmar]

Originally posted by vondrack
Yes, such things may happen. Such is the life. It will be up to the President to decide, whether he consciously disobbeys a binding poll, actually executing his right to "prevent harm to Legoland" or not.

I thought I would point out that the issue here is not to make it difficult or easy to produce a (valid/binding/likely-to-be-good) decision (and thus make the life of the president simple or complicated), rather how quickly we decide that we have a decision that is not likely to get better.

Specifically the following:

6. As soon as any option in a given poll is voted for by at least [TBA] percent of the Senate, the poll may immediately be declared valid and closed

in my interpretation means that if X% of the senate voted for something then we are dead sure that it's cool. You (and most, I believe) are saying X=51, I am saying X=75, perhaps 67.

The only questionable effect of a high value for X in this context is that most polls will be closed only after 3 days (well the number of 3 is up to debate, I would choose 3). A would expect this to be a desirable situation and not a disadvantage. And since in case of emergency the vote would become binding almost immediately (at least according to my suggestion), I definitly don't see this as a huge problem.

So to summarize, I would like a system that:

1.) Gives at least 3 days for normal decisions, unless 75% of the Senate wants the same thing (ie. we are dead sure that we don't need more time to think).

2.) Once the 3 days are over, any number of votes are binding to the president (because by default he is not better than any of us ).

3.) In case of emergency, the poll becomes binding 15 minutes before the save game must be sent further with whatever number of votes we have at that time (again, because by default he is not better than any of us ).

4.) The criteria are different for starting a war for aggression and for self-deffense.

I believe the numbers/methods I suggested define the above system. I state this only because I do find it difficult sometime to translate a [TBA] value into plain English and I might have missed something.

Now about the binding-or-not-binding issue. I think the person playing the game can ignore any decision simply because he is making the moves. At the end of the day, I don't see a big difference between ignoring a binding or a not binding poll, or even going against a 75% majority decision, because ultimately the "punishment" for all this is that people won't vote for this person again or there will be a movement to remove him before his term is over. Polls with less votes are less likely to result in such action, of course, but that's not because it wasn't binding, rather because less people might be offended. And that's about it.

Or did I miss something and there is some extra torture for ignoring a binding vote?

[vondrack]

Originally posted by delmar
I thought I would point out that the issue here is not to make it difficult or easy to produce a (valid/binding/likely-to-be-good) decision (and thus make the life of the president simple or complicated), rather how quickly we decide that we have a decision that is not likely to get better.

Specifically the following:

6. As soon as any option in a given poll is voted for by at least [TBA] percent of the Senate, the poll may immediately be declared valid and closed

in my interpretation means that if X% of the senate voted for something then we are dead sure that it's cool. You (and most, I believe) are saying X=51, I am saying X=75, perhaps 67.

The only questionable effect of a high value for X in this context is that most polls will be closed only after 3 days (well the number of 3 is up to debate, I would choose 3). A would expect this to be a desirable situation and not a disadvantage. And since in case of emergency the vote would become binding almost immediately (at least according to my suggestion), I definitly don't see this as a huge problem.

So to summarize, I would like a system that:

1.) Gives at least 3 days for normal decisions, unless 75% of the Senate wants the same thing (ie. we are dead sure that we don't need more time to think).

delmar, just go through the polls posted so far and count the votes. I am sure you will realize that the 75% clause you propose is just totally unrealistic. We have too many inactive members (that are still Senators, as every member of the team is automatically a Senator). How many polls we had that saw 75% of our members voting? 75% means, for all practical purposes, the same as not including the clause at all.

Originally posted by delmar
2.) Once the 3 days are over, any number of votes are binding to the president (because by default he is not better than any of us ).

This is how it is currently done.

Originally posted by delmar
3.) In case of emergency, the poll becomes binding 15 minutes before the save game must be sent further with whatever number of votes we have at that time (again, because by default he is not better than any of us ).

This would just make things messy, as you would have to define what an "emergency situation" is etc. Also, it is often technically not possible to wait with playing the turn that late. Although we do have 24 hours to play a turn, P/VP may not be available for the whole period. Besides, the Constitution says nothing about when P/VP are supposed to play turns, so they could avoid the 15-minute-prior-to-deadline-makes-whatever-binding clause easily by playing ahead of the deadline.

Originally posted by delmar
Now about the binding-or-not-binding issue. I think the person playing the game can ignore any decision simply because he is making the moves. At the end of the day, I don't see a big difference between ignoring a binding or a not binding poll, or even going against a 75% majority decision, because ultimately the "punishment" for all this is that people won't vote for this person again or there will be a movement to remove him before his term is over. Polls with less votes are less likely to result in such action, of course, but that's not because it wasn't binding, rather because less people might be offended. And that's about it.

True. The definition of "bindingness" is there to make sure everybody understands where is the breakpoint, after which the P/VP are supposed to obbey the will of the team irrespective of what they themselves think. They certainly CAN disobbey, but they risk being ousted from the office for ignoring the orders.

[delmar]

Originally posted by vondrack
75% means, for all practical purposes, the same as not including the clause at all.

Yes, and I think that's just fine. From the look of it, most people will vote for 51% or similar, but I hope that there will be a choice for 67% as well (I gave up the 75%), so that I can vote for it.

This would just make things messy, as you would have to define what an "emergency situation" is etc.

Emergency is when the poll loses its meaning after you pressed "ENTER or SPACEBAR". Further interpretation is up to the person who is in charge of the button.

Also, it is often technically not possible to wait with playing the turn that late. Although we do have 24 hours to play a turn, P/VP may not be available for the whole period.

Lack of precise wording distorted the meaning of my proposal, I am afraid!

I would like to see a system that gives some incentive to the the P/VP to follow the results of a poll, if they must make a decision and there is a poll, regardless of how many people voted. Not enact a rule that keeps the P/VP awake 24 hours a day.

So how about this: "blah blah blah becomes binding 15 minutes before the deadline or whenever the P/VP wants to finish the turn".

Besides, the Constitution says nothing about when P/VP are supposed to play turns, so they could avoid the 15-minute-prior-to-deadline-makes-whatever-binding clause easily by playing ahead of the deadline.

Well, now they can't!

[vondrack]

Originally posted by delmar
I would like to see a system that gives some incentive to the the P/VP to follow the results of a poll, if they must make a decision and there is a poll, regardless of how many people voted. Not enact a rule that keeps the P/VP awake 24 hours a day.

The incentive is already there - the next term elections. Under your proposal, P/VP might get bound even by a poll placed two hours before they decide to play the turn, in which just two or three members voted. Such a poll should obviously not be binding, as it cannot be considered representing "the will of the team"...

So how about this: "blah blah blah becomes binding 15 minutes before the deadline or whenever the P/VP wants to finish the turn".

IOW, this would mean: every poll, that will be pointless once the turn is played, is binding, irrespective of for how long it was posted or how many voters voted in it. IMHO, that's not right.

[delmar]

Well, I find it difficult to argue about this binding issue as everything seems to boil down to this:

Originally posted by vondrack
The incentive is already there - the next term elections.

However you are right that this:

P/VP might get bound even by a poll [..] in which just two or three members voted.

doesn't sound good. I am tempted to propose further refinements to work around such problems, like for example requiring a (low) minimal participation even in emergency situations, but I guess it's just not worth the effort. So for this question:

5. A poll is declared valid if opened for at least [TBA] period or if at least [TBA] percent of the Senate voted in it.

I will simply say: 3 days or 75%.

It just occured to me that defining "binding" such that going against it would result in immediate removal from post and maybe banning from Legoland might make an interesting option. It wouldn't necessarily help us winning the game (although that doesn't seem to matter, does it now?! ), and I guess it would require way too much additional discussion and modification to the existing rules so I am not seriously proposing it, just wanted to throw in the idea and see if anyone had any comments on it.

[ZargonX]

Originally posted by delmar


It just occured to me that defining "binding" such that going against it would result in immediate removal from post and maybe banning from Legoland might make an interesting option. It wouldn't necessarily help us winning the game (although that doesn't seem to matter, does it now?! ), and I guess it would require way too much additional discussion and modification to the existing rules so I am not seriously proposing it, just wanted to throw in the idea and see if anyone had any comments on it.

I think that's a terrible idea, in all honesty. The constitution has been written in such a way that nothing results in immediate removal from post, and definately not in immediate banning. The High Court is designed to deal with any constitutional infractions, and to decide on the appropriate punishment.

Plus, the idea of the "next election" is the real punishment. If, in real life, the Pres goes against the will of the people, he will be voted out of office. He will not be impeached (ok, if it was something really bad) nor exiled from the country. Under the system you suggest, Jack could be kicked out of office for fortifying the warrior instead of moving it as was decided in the poll. Doesn't that seem a bit unreasonable?

[delmar]

Originally posted by ZargonX
I think that's a terrible idea, in all honesty. The constitution has been written in such a way that nothing results in immediate removal from post, and definately not in immediate banning. The High Court is designed to deal with any constitutional infractions, and to decide on the appropriate punishment.

I think you are assuming that I want to keep everything pretty much as is currently, only with the "minor" modification that going against a binding vote would result in impeachement.

This is not the case.

What I would like to think through (with the help of your comments, if you have time) is how a system designed around the rule that going against binding votes results in some serious punishment could look like. As I said, I don't want to implement this system here, I am just curious.

Plus, the idea of the "next election" is the real punishment. If, in real life, the Pres goes against the will of the people, he will be voted out of office. He will not be impeached (ok, if it was something really bad) nor exiled from the country.

I guess my curiousity comes precisely from the feeling that this Demo Game is whole lot different than a real democracy. Even though US presidents have a great power, George W. Bush can't personally bomb Iraq or buy oil from them for 1000 gpt. He must follow the laws, or else he won't be president for long (well, in theory). Here, the mistake of a single person can ruin the whole "country" and also the "greatness" of a single person can easily save the ass of the collective.

Or maybe not, we shall see!

[Tiberius]

Only 6 people have voted so far. Don't you want our Constitution finished?

[delmar]

Originally posted by Tiberius
Only 6 people have voted so far. Don't you want our Constitution finished?

I am not sure everyone realized that this is the thread where we vote. Even though after your summary post, where you listed how many people voted for what, I suspected that this is the case, from the rest of it this does look like a discussion thread. Don't we want a regular "poll" thread for each of these TBA numbers? There are a lot, so it won't be convenient, but at least it would be clear.

[Nimitz]

The results so far:

1. The President is elected every [TBA] by the Senate
2 months

2. The ministers are elected by the Senate every [TBA].
one month

3. Only the Senate can declare war to another country, with a majority of [TBA] of the votes.
51%

4. The Senate can remove any minister, the President, Vice President or Justices of Court. This removal requires [TBA] of the senate to pass.
Note: [TBA] of the Senate or of the votes?
66% - 3 votes

5. A poll is declared valid if opened for at least [TBA] period or if at least [TBA] percent of the Senate voted in it.
3 days or 50% - 3 votes

6. As soon as any option in a given poll is voted for by at least [TBA] percent of the Senate, the poll may immediately be declared valid and closed
51% - 5 votes

7. Exceptions: Polls that decide Constitutional Ammendments, Declarations of War, Elections and Removal from Office are declared valid if opened for at least [TBA] period or if at least [TBA] percent of the Senate voted in it.
5 days or 66% - 4 votes

8. The ammendment will be considered adopted if it receives [TBA] of the votes.
66% - 3 votes

[Tiberius]

Results after 7 votes

Nimitz, I didn't fully understand your post. I suppose you took my post (the last one, with the results), edited it and kept only those options that you wanted to vote, and this is your vote. Correct ?

--------
The results so far (if my previous supposition is correct):

1. The President is elected every [TBA] by the Senate
2 month - 1 vote
one month – 5 votes
3 weeks – 1 vote

2. The ministers are elected by the Senate every [TBA].
one month – 6 votes
3 weeks – 1 vote

3. Only the Senate can declare war to another country, with a majority of [TBA] of the votes.
66% - 3 votes (I considered 67% being 66%; we can decide this later)
51% - 4 votes

4. The Senate can remove any minister, the President, Vice President or Justices of Court. This removal requires [TBA] of the senate to pass.
Note: [TBA] of the Senate or of the votes?
51% - 2 votes
66% - 4 votes
60% - 1 vote

5. A poll is declared valid if opened for at least [TBA] period or if at least [TBA] percent of the Senate voted in it.
3 days or 50% - 3 votes
4 days or 50% - 2 votes
3 days or 66% – 1 vote
3 days or 75% - 1 vote

6. As soon as any option in a given poll is voted for by at least [TBA] percent of the Senate, the poll may immediately be declared valid and closed
51% - 6 votes
75% - 1 vote

7. Exceptions: Polls that decide Constitutional Ammendments, Declarations of War, Elections and Removal from Office are declared valid if opened for at least [TBA] period or if at least [TBA] percent of the Senate voted in it.
7 days or 66% - 1 vote
5 days or 66% - 5 votes
5 days or 75% - 1 vote

8. The ammendment will be considered adopted if it receives [TBA] of the votes.
51% - 3 votes
66% - 4 votes

[Tiberius]

People who voted already:

Tiberius
Spiffor
vondrack
Kloreep
lmtoops
delmar
nimitz

The active members of our team who haven't voted yet:

Colonel Kraken
Jack_www
Odin
quantum_mechani
redstar1
Sharpe
ZargonX
(I apologize if I forgot somebody)

Please vote, so we can finalize the Magna Chartaginia!

[ZargonX]

Here's my ballot:

1. one month
2. one month
3. 51%
4. 66%
5. 3 days, 50%
6. 51%
7. 5 days, 66%
8. 51%