How should the constitution be amended ?

Spiffor · June 14, 2002, 23:08

This poll will be closed Saturnday , June 22, about 03:00 GMT.

As you know it, rules are currently being decided by the polls. Timeline is currently compiling these rules in a "constitution", according to the wish of the many voters who want a limited set of rules. The current "constitution" can be found here.

However, one question has not been adressed until now : how should rules be changed ?
This concern is perfectly natural : as the game and the mentality of citizens will evolve, our needs will not be the same.

According to our democratic principles, the question of the constitution's revision should be answered by the people.

Here are the options :
- Group A : A majority vote (51%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment
- Group A : A 2/3 vote (66%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment

- Group B : Only a minister or a president can post a poll for amendment. Once this is done, A majority vote by the people (51%) is enough for it to pass.
- Group B : Only a minister or a president can post a poll for amendment. Once this is done, a 2/3 vote (66%) is enough for it to pass.

-other
- Abstain.

As the polling commission advised, this poll is split into 2 parts :
1. Knowing if everybody can suggest an amendment, or only restricted political personnel.
2. Knowing what majority should be used to amend the constitution.
Sidenote : If you feel that constitution is the only matter of the government, please choose the "other" option, and mention in your post that people shouldn't voice over the constit.

The "group" wich will earn most votes will decide who has the initiative for amendments.
Then, the option within this winning group will decide what majority will be needed for a constitution change.

Example : if the 4th option (group B) has most votes, but Group A has more votes than group B overall, then anyone will be able to suggest an amendment. Within this group A, if the 1st option leads, then an amendment will be adopted by 51% of people.

Edit : wrote the time limit at the beginning of the poll.

Ninot · June 14, 2002, 23:14

as always, I vote other... but only cuz..

I think any minister, or the President, should be able to put it up for ammendment

however, if it was not the President who put it up.. and the vote only turns out to be like 55% in favor.. i think its in the presidents power to veto.. put it up for a second vote, where it MUST be 66% or higher to pass.

Jon Shafer · June 14, 2002, 23:29

I really think such things should be up to the Ministers to submit, being that they're the most well-informed bunch of people here in this community, which means they'll know the most about what's going on, and what ought to be changed. A regular citizen can bring up the option, but it should be a Minister's job to actually make it into a real amendment. Besides, our Constitution is going to be only a list of a few rules, there won't be that much to change. Oh yeah, I also say 2/3 because that keeps too many things from being changed/added without a super-majority.

Spiffor · June 14, 2002, 23:29

I support the first choice : simple majority, and anyone can propose an amendment.
Reasons for this are simple :

- "Anyone can propose an amendment" is the most democratic way. Our glorious democracy shouldn't concentrate all the power in the hands of a few politicians.
- there are not mllions of citizens of Apolytonia ; there re not much more than 100. As we're not too many, I think things are manageable, even when anyone has rights.
- I favor the simple majority, because current rules were decided by simple majority. If the first rules were decided this way, I don't see why changing them would need a 2/3 majority.

Overall, I strive for the most democratic constitution possible. That's why I voted #1.

Spiffor · June 14, 2002, 23:32

Btw, someone voted "other" without explaining his views... What should we do with this ?

Jon Shafer · June 14, 2002, 23:33

Toss it. I don't feel that if people care to explain why they say 'other' it shouldn't really be counted. After all, 'other' and nothing more doesn't help us, now does it?

Moral Hazard · June 15, 2002, 06:06

Are we a republic or a democracy. Pretty soon everythings going to be two/thirds

civman2000 · June 15, 2002, 09:47

Simple majority of the people! The constitution should be as weak and flexible as is possible!

jdd2007 · June 15, 2002, 11:04

i have said it before and ill say it again: we are a democracy. ministers have enough power already.

jdd2007 · June 15, 2002, 11:04

o, i voted the first option

Captain · June 15, 2002, 11:23

Hey, one important thing you left out!

Is it 51% and 2/3 of all voters? (currently 105)

Or is it 51% and 2/3 of the poll results? (anything <105)

that makes a big difference!

If it's the latter, will we have quorum requirement? say no less than 50 voters?

ThePlagueRat · June 15, 2002, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
I support the first choice : simple majority, and anyone can propose an amendment.
Reasons for this are simple :

- "Anyone can propose an amendment" is the most democratic way. Our glorious democracy shouldn't concentrate all the power in the hands of a few politicians.
- there are not mllions of citizens of Apolytonia ; there re not much more than 100. As we're not too many, I think things are manageable, even when anyone has rights.
- I favor the simple majority, because current rules were decided by simple majority. If the first rules were decided this way, I don't see why changing them would need a 2/3 majority.

Overall, I strive for the most democratic constitution possible. That's why I voted #1.

I see many people have done that. It's in the lead!
And I agree, this could maybe be victory for the opposition?
So we could make parties?

The choice of the most used western constitutonal legislature:
"Group B : Only a minister or a president can post a poll for amendment. Once this is done, a 2/3 vote (66%) is enough for it to pass. "

This would secure the power to the political elite, and is the most realistic in todays "democracies"...

Spiffor · June 15, 2002, 12:42

Captain : sorry, I didn't think precising this. I thought about 51% or 2/3 of voters, and not of citizens... The general quorum for polling validity is currently discussed, in the polling commission thread I think. But no decision has been met yet.
I guess we'll have to decide the quorum in yet another poll

; oh well...
I think that we have time for the elaboration of our constitution... (In fact, the more I think of it, the more I could have waited before posting this poll). So I think we can wait before making a poll about the right quorum

Ninot :
If GroupA and GroupB are tied at the end of the poll, your "other" voice will be important. Would you categorize your position in Group A, Group B, or none of them ?

Panag · June 15, 2002, 14:57

hi ,

what we should have is this , anyone can call for an amendment , but it must pass a 66% vote , the the president say's yes or no , however , the senate could over-rule the president , .....

have a nice day

Trevman · June 15, 2002, 20:30

we need a stable, but simple, documentment, code of laws, constitution, or whatever name it is today. Therfore a large majority of 2/3 is best. However, such a fundamental change in the this game cannot be formally proposed at the will of a common citizen. There is too much potential for abuse, chaos, and stupidity.

civman2000 · June 15, 2002, 20:49

It is very clear: 80.83% of the voters are on the far ends of the specturm. One supports power for the people and a more flexible constitution, and one supports a system in which the rulers control the rules and it is very hard to change them if the need should come up.

You choose which one you think will lead to a better Apolytonia.

notyoueither · June 15, 2002, 21:01

Group A : A majority vote (51%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment

A wise democracy protects itself from the whims of tyrants.

Timeline · June 17, 2002, 14:22

bump

jdjdjd · June 17, 2002, 14:47

If a rule has already been voted on and put in place, obviously we all had thought about when we voted the first time...than a simple majority should not be enough to over turn it. Just like impeachment should be, we voted the guy in, we should just not be able to pull the plu without a clear majority. It should be 2/3's or more, than only those rules that clearly are a problem once in practice will be changed, and not every rule every time the mood strikes. This also makes the weight of any rule in the constitution heavy.

Panag · June 17, 2002, 17:01

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
Group A : A majority vote (51%) is enough to amend the constitution. Anyone may post a poll for amendment

A wise democracy protects itself from the whims of tyrants.

hi ,

two thirds or four fifths should be more democratic , ....

have a nice day

Kuciwalker · June 17, 2002, 17:04

The AAACC3's position is that there is not and never should be a constitution in the first place. Case closed.

Panag · June 17, 2002, 17:13

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
The AAACC3's position is that there is not and never should be a constitution in the first place. Case closed.

hi ,

many people feel otherwise , ....

why would you say that , .....

have a nice day

civman2000 · June 17, 2002, 17:17

skywalker: i disagree. Even though we dont like it, we cant stop there from being a constitution. AS leader of the AAACC3, i say we support 51%, people can post polls

Kuciwalker · June 17, 2002, 17:53

Ok, I've changed my opinion to follow that of civman.

Pythagoras · June 17, 2002, 20:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
I really think such things should be up to the Ministers to submit, being that they're the most well-informed bunch of people here in this community, which means they'll know the most about what's going on, and what ought to be changed. A regular citizen can bring up the option, but it should be a Minister's job to actually make it into a real amendment. Besides, our Constitution is going to be only a list of a few rules, there won't be that much to change. Oh yeah, I also say 2/3 because that keeps too many things from being changed/added without a super-majority.

As a government that supposes to derrive from the people, constitutional changes should also be confirmed by the people. Otherwise you guys could ammend yourselves into power forever.

Jon Shafer · June 17, 2002, 20:43

I didn't say that only ministers should be allowed to vote on an amendment, just submit an amendment. That's not too hard to do.

ThePlagueRat · June 17, 2002, 21:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
I didn't say that only ministers should be allowed to vote on an amendment, just submit an amendment. That's not too hard to do.

Well, in that opinion it should be tough for them to do such radical changes!
Ok, needs extensive public support... 66%, I say.
NB: Is the current const. fully legitimate?

notyoueither · June 17, 2002, 21:03

Yes Trip, we are all becoming aware that you favour all real power being held by ministers. Left to the people will be to vote like sheep.

Jon Shafer · June 17, 2002, 21:08

And I know that you hate me and my policies NYE, just be sure not to vote for me next time.

Panag · June 17, 2002, 21:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
And I know that you hate me and my policies NYE, just be sure not to vote for me next time.

hi ,

mr. president , that could backfire in you re-election , ....

have a nice day