Amendment II: Apolytonian Court - Idea Compilation - Page 3

MrWhereItsAt · July 11, 2002, 07:05

Am I the only one thinking that all this talk of what went wrong in RL Democracies is a little too involved? Role-playing aside, we are playing a game here, so no-one has anything to gain by causing mayhem. Besides, if you're going for President, or any Ministerial position for that matter, you seem to get pretty thoroughly grilled by everyone here. Also, after a little time one certainly starts to leave an impression about what type of poster you are - for example, of the non-Ministers here, I feel I would pretty much trust NYE with a vote for any position, should the giant cat ever run for one. I think we can trust our feelings on this, and I for one believe that not a single Minister would lead us astray.

I would certainly be very surprised if anyone voted in ever betray the people to any extent. Personally, I think that if we can trust EVERYone with the save, we can trust the Ministers (since we chose them) to make educated decisions, based on those who have helped (or hindered

) their terms with consistent, thoughtful and unbiased posting. After all, the Ministers are the ones who must respond to most posters - surely they are the best qualified to choose the best for this job. If someone has a problem, OK. I see elections as being a further politicization of a position that should be apolitical - not the best of ways to go about ensuring such a result.

jdjdjd · July 11, 2002, 08:00

Appointment by the pres with confirmation by the ministers should be enough. If any (minister, judge, president) appear to be corrupt you have the right to proceed to impeachment & possible removal of office of that official. We leave that in, so that our hands are not tied. There is no military, our economy is not super-depressed , our currency is not so inflated that you need a wheelbarrow to go to the market, we were not humiliated in a war (not yet any way)...in sum we are not the Weimar Republic.

If we can not decide this issue, than a good compromise as recommended by NYE, i.e. confirmation only by the public after appointment by the president. And, that means no campaigning or politicking by the appointees, you refer to their posts to decide if you want them in or not....just a vote to confirm

mtgillespie · July 11, 2002, 08:05

Quote:

Role-playing aside, we are playing a game here, so no-one has anything to gain by causing mayhem.

Generally, people who wish to cause mayhem don't have anything to gain. It doesn't seem to stop them.

Also, you put role-playing aside, but i'd like to put it back

. I'm finding this one of the most interesting bits of discussion we've had, along with the ethics thread. I'm not a great Civ player, although i've learnt a lot since i've been here, so i find these types of threads/decisions a place where i can contribute a bit more.

I do agree with Trip, at some point we do have to put some trust in someone , otherwise we go round in circles trying to balance everything, and assuming everyone will be corrupt. I guess that trust has to rest with the people, and the power to remove any official with it.

disorganizer · July 11, 2002, 08:41

i also think the roleplaying is the real spirit of the demo-game. so we cant put it aside ;-)

but this also has a drawback: roleplaying also can be that you try to destroy things which are established.

ppl will get corrupted. ppl will get influenced. so there must be a way for the CITIZEN MAJORITY to remove those if it becomes too much.

i second the removal of responsibilities from officials, and also second that we should hear a bit more on the citizens. many decisions in this game are taken by officials only. just look on how many game-decission polls are there in comparison to the others.

if this game descends to a "the president/ministers play" then we will only have those few participating. even the deputies will leave then.

we also experience here some drawbacks on rl-systems. dont forget this.

Sheik · July 11, 2002, 09:59

disorganizer you are right the people must have more power.

But when the game gets into the later eras we will have more complex decisions. Right now we are laying ground work. There isn't much at this time that really needs much deciding. If this trend continues into the later game then we will have a problem.

ThePlagueRat · July 11, 2002, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by mtgillespie
I've learnt a lot since i've been here, so i find these types of threads/decisions a place where i can contribute a bit more.

Oh yeah, this roleplay aspect is a good one!
We can consider this demo-game a training exercise in democratic thinking. And maybe in thinking itself ?

Therefore we are so lucky to have a Thinkers Guild where we discuss all kinds of important matters. (i.e. whiskey tasting and warfare buildup routines)

Philosophies on "democracy" :

Ok, it's also funny to see how posters act as supporters of democracy, in all different ways. A U.S. democracy works different than a Norwegian one. Which is the most democratic?
An unfair question, and it could start a brawl...

The U.S. president solemnly appoints a lot of individuals for positions, and there is a very questionable judicial system.
U.K. has, in addition to the House of Commons, a House of Lords. Its aristocratic members were not (and are never to be) elected! Norway has a strong central core administration and a horrific bueracracy . Ok, those were examples of "great democracies".

Constitutional Monarchy is the name of several European democratic systems. Social Democracy is, by some grade, influenced by soscialist parties. The ballot options varies from place to place. Sometimes you have nothing but 2 options. There are several remaining examples. So...

What country can we call a pure democracy? My answer is none at all...
But can we build a pure democracy right here on the internet then?

jdjdjd · July 11, 2002, 13:11

Obviously, this thing has been hashed around, and many good ideas have made there way in.

I suggest that once the polls close, that the amendment be compiled based on same with certain other matters that need hashing out, and we can,

A. hash them
B. Trip review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
C. Trip appoint someone/panel to review the hashing and propose an amendment for vote
D. Leave the hashing to the new court (with exception of impeachment which probably needs a separate amendment to include the court in the original consititution, i.e. an court roles and/or ability to impeach a judge).

There is nothing wrong with the court making many of its own rules and set precedent on them. Maybe the its better to leave things flexible, this idea is a baby and needs room to grow.

I will post this same message in the related threads.

disorganizer · July 11, 2002, 16:54

but dont we want to make it better? the problem of "true democracy" is that you can get a poll of 10 million ppl thru in a usefull amount of time.
we can here, with electronic media, make polls of 50 citizens (50%) in 1 day! if we wait 2 days, we even get up to 70%.

GodKing · July 12, 2002, 12:02

Sounds good Trip.

Micaelus · July 12, 2002, 12:22

If the court cannot create cases, who will bring them to it? Also, what will their rulings accomplish?--Going back to an autosave and changing what has happened? Or somehow trying to correct the problem ingame?

LordImpact · July 12, 2002, 13:27

The public will be responsible for looking out for bad seeds. Prehaps a government watchdog group will be created.
I think that we have already established that there will be no "time travel" i.e. going back to an older save. The court's most important duty will be impeachment of elected officials. While we cannot go back and change something that was done, we can cut away the rotten parts of our democracy by removing ministers and other officials. This will help keep our democracy functioning properly.

Sheik · July 12, 2002, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by LordImpact
The public will be responsible for looking out for bad seeds. Prehaps a government watchdog group will be created.
I think that we have already established that there will be no "time travel" i.e. going back to an older save. The court's most important duty will be impeachment of elected officials. While we cannot go back and change something that was done, we can cut away the rotten parts of our democracy by removing ministers and other officials. This will help keep our democracy functioning properly.

----------------

I think that the court should have the power to create cases though I don't think it is necessary because the people will be able to bring cases to the court if they feel strongly enough about something.

Jon Shafer · July 13, 2002, 01:10

It seems that in lieu of this, the elections have come around. I don't want this issue to dive off the ends of the earth quite yet. I haven't read most of the last page or two, so if someone could summarize the new debates/suggestions/ideas up into one post I would GREATLY appreciate it, so I could perhaps add some stuff to the amendment proposal.

Danke.

WhiteBandit · July 13, 2002, 05:36

Overall, I think this is a pretty good amendment. However there are some things we need to stick to in order to have a strong court.

-I don't think they should be responsible or allowed to impeach members of the other goverment branches at all. The public can already do this.

-Must be appointed by the President, that way they aren't trying to bow to popular opinion. However, I like the little twist. They are allowed to serve a 2 month term. If they wish to continue, they would naturally talk to the current serving President. This President would then either reappoint him or choose another candidate. Then these candidates would have to be confirmed by the ministers, which I think is fair enough.

-The court can only review cases brought to it. I think this is a good idea, as Trip stated. Otherwise, you can have an all liberal or all conservative court that will actively search and strike down any laws or actions that it specifically disagrees with. Now the only left to figure out is how will cases be presented to the court. A free for all type of system? The court would have to filter through quite a bit of stuff each session, but this would balance the "easy access" to the court complaints with the people who think the court should be proactive in getting cases. (Granted, they still couldn't actively seek a case, but in theory, with so many complaints, there would presumably be a lot on their table).

-Also when we first install the justices, I think we need to do a tiered system, that way President's down the road can't pack a court with their own justices.
So for the FIRST court session, we'd have to have truncated terms.
1 justice would only serve 1 month
2 justices would serve 2 months
2 justices would serve 3 months

then once the second term comes around, we continue into the 2 month terms as originally stated. This will allow a sitting president to only place at most 2 judges on the bench at once (so that he won't be able to unfairly control the court). So we'd have to keep track of the staggered terms, but it would be highly worth it in my opinion to keep a strong and mostly BALANCED court. Granted, every 3 months, one president will be shafted and only be allowed to nominate 1 justice, but I don't think that is too bad.

The only unfairness is that the first president who picks the justices can pack the court with all FIVE if they wish, representing their political agenda. But I think it's a risk we should definately take in order to make later presidencies and courts balanced.

Captain · July 13, 2002, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
It seems that in lieu of this, the elections have come around. I don't want this issue to dive off the ends of the earth quite yet. I haven't read most of the last page or two, so if someone could summarize the new debates/suggestions/ideas up into one post I would GREATLY appreciate it, so I could perhaps add some stuff to the amendment proposal.

Danke.

Unless someone else does it first, I can do this for you within two days. Unfortunately, real life is calling at the moment. (This is why I've never run for office, because I can't be consistently around enough).

So unless someone else wants to, I'll resummarize everything in a few days.

Jon Shafer · July 13, 2002, 22:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Captain
Unless someone else does it first, I can do this for you within two days. Unfortunately, real life is calling at the moment. (This is why I've never run for office, because I can't be consistently around enough).

So unless someone else wants to, I'll resummarize everything in a few days.

Thanks.

Once I get a summary of the most popular ideas, I'll hash out another version to work with.

Epistax · July 13, 2002, 23:13

I am wondering about the complete job description of these justice system. If it were to imitate that of the Supreme Court (US), would that mean that it would hear cases not related to politics at all? The only thing I can think of at the moment is ruling about a public nuisance in turn chats / forum, but for the most part that can be acted upon intelligently without much thought needed. (Although maybe the court would later rule on that decision).

This is a different kind of issue I see from others that have been posted.

Moral Hazard · July 14, 2002, 01:20

Some more judicial responsibilities.

Administering elections (starting); including special elections. As well as deciding what to do in case of tie election.

Keeping a list of laws, and rules.

Moral Hazard · July 14, 2002, 02:46

The reason for the above is not that I'm afraid that the president will be corrupt but that this will limit his already intensive workload.

I am correct in assuming that the court presides over diputed polls? I don't think there are very many of those any more anyway.

Quote:

Also when we first install the justices, I think we need to do a tiered system, that way President's down the road can't pack a court with their own justices.
So for the FIRST court session, we'd have to have truncated terms.
1 justice would only serve 1 month
2 justices would serve 2 months
2 justices would serve 3 months

I really like this suggestion except I think it should be
2 justices serving for 1 month.
2 justices serving for 2 months.
1 justice serving for 3 months.

I think they should be appointed and then confirmed by the people, but I don't really have any strong opinions on the above statements.

ThePlagueRat · July 14, 2002, 15:21

How 'bout the ministers collectively appointing these judges?

And then senate votes for confirmation, a yes/no-polling.
(the senate is by simplicity assumed to be the participating members here)

Could that be reasonable?

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 15:26

But then there would still have to be some sort of 'election' amongst the officials in order to decide upon judges. Again, the 'popularity contest' issue comes up.

ThePlagueRat · July 14, 2002, 15:50

So it's a 'popularity contest' vs. an 'integrity contest' ?

Ok, I'm not really sure which way would prove to be most democratic...

Captain · July 14, 2002, 22:54

GENERAL SUMMARY of the JUDICIAL THREADS

(Note: All polls refer to % of active citizens).

Major Issues with General Consensus:

1. Judges should not hold any other office while being a judge.

2. Three judges should sit on each case. The quorum is 3. Which judges sit on which case will be determined based on availability, randomness, or a cycle.

3. There should be more judges, at least 5, so that at least 3 of them will always be available for duty.

4. The main duties of Judges are to determine validity of polls, repolls, and other contentious laws - according to the existing Constitution and laws. Politics are not to be considered.

5a. Judges have the additional role of "filtering" accusations/charges against people (in "Hearings") and determining which ones warrant proceeding (with "Trial") and which should be dismissed.

5b. This includes deciding whether there are grounds for Impeachment trials to proceed. Judges do not have the power to indict on their own.

6. Judges can be removed by the same impeachment process as ministers. If more judges are on trial than are available for sitting in judgement, all judges will then face a Confirmation poll (51% or 2/3). Any unconfirmed Judge will have to be replaced. Hearings/Trials will then proceed.

7. Impeachment cases have "Hearings" which may proceed to "Trial". Polling cases do not have "Hearings" or "Trial". Judges simply make a decision and the poll is either valid or not.

8. Judges have no power to sentence, no power to create new laws (other than by the same means that regular citizens do), and no power to enforce their recommendations. They simply decide the validity of polls & law, and whether the law has been broken.

9. Decisions are made by majority opinion. 2/3 is required. Judges, once committed to sitting on the case, may not abstain.

10. Judges must publish a report giving the legal reasons for their decision to validate the ruling. Only the majority opinion must be given for validation. Dissenting opinion should be given but is not required for validation. In the event of a Unanimous ruling, the report must still be published for validation. This is in case of appeal and to keep Justice transparent. Reports should include any recommendations.

11. Judges cannot seek out cases on their own. (But a concerned judge can bring a case before the Judiciary as long as they do not sit on it or any other current case. This prevents Judges from "trading favours". The simpler loophole is for a Judge to simply PM a citizen who will take up their cause for them.)

Major Issues without Consensus

1. Should Judges be appointed, or elected, or something else?

a. Judges should not be elected as this leads to a popularity contest, rather than who will best serve the nation. Judges should be appointed.

b. Judges should not be appointed since this would lead to too much political interference and leading to Judges who are beholden to certain ministers/officials. Judges should be elected.

c. A possibility is appointment by the President (or ministers) with a required 51% confirmation of nominees by the citizens (not an election). This is a compromise.

2. Should Judges have term limits? If so, how long? Should the terms be staggered to provide rotation?

a. Unlimited terms could lead to corruption. People should be able to remove bad judges without resorting to impeachment trial (especially if multiple judges are protecting each other by dismissing charges).

b. Limited terms means Judges will have to play to the crowds or appease the ministers when it comes time for re-election/re-appointment. Unlimited terms prevent politicizing justice or vendettas. Besides, removal already exists, from retirement and impeachment.

3. Should Judges have the power of injuction to halt the game ?

a. Yes, to prevent unconstitutional acts. Example given was that of a President engaging in an unlawful war (that which the public has voted against).

b. No, the Justice system can punish criminal acts after they are committed, but not prevent them in advance since no crime has taken place.

(Also, the chance of the President unlawfully engaging in some act is zero, since at present the Constitution does not require officials to obey polls.)

4. Should Judges have the power of injunction to halt a contested poll until a decision is made? but not the game?

5. Judicial decisions are open to appeal, but what is the mechanism for appeal?

a. A review by the other judges (not involved in the case) who then decide whether there are any legal grounds for granting a new trial.

b. A poll to the public with a 51% or 2/3 vote success forces a new trial.

6. Where the law is unclear or non-existant, should Judges be required to dismiss the case?

a. Yes. No relevant law exists, therefore, the Judges have no right to continue a trial. Any new law created should not be retroactive because citizens should not be bound in fear of unknown new laws condemning them for present actions.

b. No. Judges may place the case on Hold while requesting the legislature (that is, all the citizens) to clarify the law or create a new law, by discussion & poll. The case can then proceed.

7. Should governments be allowed a Notwithstanding Clause which lets them temporarily ignore Judicial rulings or delay their implementation?

8. Should there be any clauses similar to Presidental Pardon?

9. Should Judges be allowed to be members of political parties?

How's that? Have I left anything significant out?

civman2000 · July 15, 2002, 09:07

1.b
2. Yes, 2 terms of 2 months, they should be staggered.
3. a
4. i don't understand the question

5. b
6. a
7. No
8. no
9. yes

Robber Baron · July 15, 2002, 10:28

Captain: Kudos and much thanks for sorting this stuff out. This has been an incredibly tangled set of threads -- but an important issue, and we appreciate the work of those of you (you too, Trip, and others) who are staying on top of this.

Maltes · July 15, 2002, 10:40

sorry, I'm just testing the forum... Markos, sincere apologies!

jdjdjd · July 15, 2002, 11:58

Just a couple, I think were missed by Cap'n....

1. Should judged be restricted from involvement via threads in political campaigns and elections. They still can vote.

2.Cases to be heard by judges are restricted to constitutional issues and impeachment...or not.

3. Cases judges hear must be brought to them or can they go out decide to hear a case on their own.

Captain · July 15, 2002, 12:27

Go to this thread here to continue the discussion so we have have it all in the same thread

continued discussion

thanks!