Discussion about the New Constitution

[Thud]

The post you quoted was intended to refer to 'majority' leaders in the Senate.

However, on the issue you (apoc) addressed,I disagree. I think that someone needs to speak out and clarify Science issues. It doesn't have to be an elected position. I'm sorry if it seemed like I intended it to be an elected position. It would be appointed either as a deputy minister, or appointed by the as yet non-existant Speaker. But it should exist.

[GhengisFarb™]

Originally posted by notyoueither
We worked on this a long while. Many questions arise on first reading. Please read it and reread it if you wish. I believe that many things asked so far are already covered.

I hope that most of you come to see it the way the 4 of us do. It is a documnet worthy of adoption after a good discussion.

I think you did a wonderful job and created an extremely versatile and concise document as I stated in the/my first post.

I'm just pointed out possible loopholes that might need to be addressed now as opposed to after they are exploited.

[Thud]

Oh, and I know that you have provided for the creation of a Deputy Science Minister. I'm just saying that that post should exist, and perhaps it should exist outside of the executive branch.

[Togas]

Originally posted by Arnelos
While, from a practical standpoint, this is true... the constitution you wrote also doesn't PREVENT the Senate from acting on "every freaking little thing" should the time exist in which the Senate could do so...

The fact that they/we DON'T have all the time in the world will mean they/we will have to be choosy about which things to affect, but the constitution you wrote certainly provides very few limits on the enormous range of things that can be affected...

I'd like to comment on this.

In some ways, we awoke a sleeping Dragon and called it The Senate. It has teeth and breathes fire and has a whole host of checks and powers over the elected officials. It could be more of a problem than it's worth.

But then you have to think that if maybe, just maybe, it's worth it to open up the game to everyone, to get more people involved, and to make the decisions that everyone feels should be our decisions, ours. Not some elected guy who ran unopposed. The Senate creates problems, yes, but it frees us up to be an actual democracy, an Oligarchy no longer.

One thing we did consider when granting the Senate powers is that the Senate cannot act quickly. It's against it's nature as it must poll any decision and every decision must take at least 3 days, usually more. This inability to respond quickly is a limiting factor that should tame the beast to some degree, but there are other functions as well, most notably the power of the President to act on budget affairs in the absence of a Senate directive, and the ability of the Executives to Veto. Plus, several other "immeidate" decisions (like when to negotiate peace) have been left out of Senate hands.

But in the end, it will be up to the citizens who make up the Senate to make it a viable, influential, and worthwhile institution. And we are somewhat optimistic that the citzens who participate will make this body a worthwhile and respectable organization.

--Togas

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx


That is not what I am exactly meaning. I am saying is that if out of those 25%, the Quorum, the majority are not YEA, then a law should not be passed. And I disagree with Ghengis's assesment of how the Abstains should count toward whatever had majority. That would mean a simple 6 yes, 5 no, and 40 abstain would result in what otherwise was a hotly contested law passing. They should not count as either yes OR no, but should either count as neutral, but effect the outcome, or be thrown out all together and not count toward Quorum. Many vote abstain just to view results, fine, let them watch, but either throw it out all together, or count it in the final tally as a seperate option, don't lump them with something else.

'That would mean a simple 6 yes, 5 no, and 40 abstain would result in what otherwise was a hotly contested law passing.'

But Unortho, if it was a hottly contested law wouldn't more people vote yes or no rather than abstain (as abstain is defined)? Or simply not vote at all in an attempt to deny quorum?

'They should not count as either yes OR no, but should either count as neutral, but effect the outcome, or be thrown out all together and not count toward Quorum.'

I'm having a hard time tracking with you here. If you do not want to effect quorum, do not vote. Simply post your disagreement with the poll.

Your proposal would make it more difficult to pass laws and deny some people the option of saying 'I don't care yes or no, but I want the issue decided so we can move on.'

That bolded bit is what decided my position on this question. You may still disagree of course.

BTW. The terms of quorum and the need to tinker with them from time to time has been addressed by:
(iii) The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution

What do you think?

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Thud
However, on the issue you (apoc) addressed,I disagree. I think that someone needs to speak out and clarify Science issues. It doesn't have to be an elected position. I'm sorry if it seemed like I intended it to be an elected position. It would be appointed either as a deputy minister, or appointed by the as yet non-existant Speaker. But it should exist.

No, no, no, no. This was discussed very heavily and this is the best solution.

Deputy minister is bad. First, putting it under the executive branch allows it to remain unbaised as it might be used as a pawn if it was under the control of some other minister. Second, the ministries that exist already have enough to worry about. They don't need power over science and the economy.

The Speaker idea is completely horrible. I'm sorry, but that would lead to heavy political manipulation of technology. There needs to be a great amount of discussion about research, especially now that our own research will soon be noticably influential. Politicising techs would be a horrible thing to do. As Minister of Science I made sure the best technology for the civilization as a whole was researched. That would not always happen if a political speaker had control over the position.

The same goes for the minister of the economy.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thud
Oh, and I know that you have provided for the creation of a Deputy Science Minister. I'm just saying that that post should exist, and perhaps it should exist outside of the executive branch.

Yes it should exist Thud. Right now it is really needed, and I'm sure that most any President would appoint a Science deputy. Right now.

But what about for the first 20 turns of the game? What about once we have all the techs? Do we need a constitutionally mandated position in which to park a house plant?

I do not see delegation as a problem. People are delegating all over the place in the game right now even though that delegation has had no official status and has very nearly resulted in some controversy.

[Thud]

I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by Thud
I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

The senate currently has no control over technology, and for a very legitimate reason as I mentioned earlier. "(h) The President decides what technology to research next."

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Thud
I'm not saying it has to be constitutionally mandated. I'm also saying that we simply have two options: to 1) have it under the executive branch, or 2) have some Senate guy be responsibly. I don't particulary care which at this point.

OK. I think it is a no brainer that any president would appoint one, except maybe you as pres.

Although, I would say that any of the positions that effect game play directly do belong in the executive. We need people who have the mandate to act as the game evolves.

Under the proposals before us we elect 4 of the executive. Those 4 are then ultimately responsible for the actions of all of the people they appoint to help them carry out the heavy responsibilities of actually playing the game. Boy, you people spend a lot of time turning over rocks while you play. Good job, and don't stop.

The good thing about the reduced number of elected positions is that we will actually be given choices in most of the elections, rather than government by acclamation that we currently have in many positions in any given term.

I like the idea.

[adaMada]

I agree with what's been posted on the Science Deputy. The reason the power was delegated to the Executive branch is because neutrality is important, and the power has been given to the President because we believe that the President (and his advisors) can strike the best balance between building, warfare, and other techs.

I think GodKing made a very good and sensible post that clarifies one of my chief fears -- one that most of us seem to agree on (even UnOrthO ). We don't want the Senate to go sprawling out and passing laws on every little issue. Remember, the Senate just doesn't need to pass laws on most things. Example: Deputy for Science. The power already exists in the Executive Branch (the issue of weather it should be there or not being seperate), so let the President do it -- and that doesn't need a law. To be honest, I personally feel that the Con Con is in a tough spot right now. On one hand, we have people who want to go and create a complicated party system for running the Senate. On the other, we have people worried that the game's going to implode under the pressure of hundreds of new Laws. Both are good points , but (more importantly) both are things that the Constitutional Convention has no control over -- it's up to the Senate to decide how many laws are appropriate and what laws are appropriate. Any check in the system must come from inside, and I'd strongly urge Senate leaders to keep a system closer to what we have for the first month. The reason? Quite simply, let's get the rest of the Government working before we start reforming the Senate. I'd also urge Senators who are concerned about what bills may be passed to remember that this is a seperate issue from the Constitution itself, and it is up to the senate to find a moderate and acceptable path for itself to follow.

On the Quorum issue -- I need to consider the subject more before I post again tonight.

-- adaMada

[UnOrthOdOx]

NYE, We disagree. That is obvious. I don't have enough energy to discuss it further, however. You and I have disagreed on this issue since Case 1.

I don't think a law that fails to garner enough votes YES out of the TOTAL number of voters should be allowed to pass, period. Abstains included.

The beauty of the court ruling is that it allows for someone to override that ruling by clearly posting what abstains will mean. It allows for this disagreement. If you look at EACH OF MY POLLS from that point on, you will find ALL have stated that abstains will count as 'NO'. It works for all involved. I post how I see abstains FOR THAT POLL, someone else can see it their way and post as such. It makes everyone happy.

The problem here is that no 'law' can reverse a section of the Constitution. You are essentially now dictating how abstains will be used, and providing no alternative short of amendment. Why not leave the wording in the court ruling and leave it in the hands of the poll creator to dictate how Abstains are counted? It has worked beautifully that way since that ruling. Why change something that is working?

[UnOrthOdOx]

ada, clear you box.

Make sure to get the sent items and M tracking as well.

[adaMada]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
ada, clear you box.

Make sure to get the sent items and M tracking as well.

Will clear out enough space for five messages or so tonight, and do a big download/save/delete tomorrow .

THanks for the heads up.

-- adaMada

[Togas]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
You are essentially now dictating how abstains will be used, and providing no alternative short of amendment. Why not leave the wording in the court ruling and leave it in the hands of the poll creator to dictate how Abstains are counted? It has worked beautifully that way since that ruling. Why change something that is working?

"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

[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]

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]

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.