Discussion about the New Constitution

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by 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.

I approve the VP nominated, but that is not in contradiction with my not supporting the VP partipating in the veto. The VP cannot be distinguished, politically from the President ; the Senate approval, as I understand it, is only to ascertain that he has a profile in line with the job (he has not played ahead before, he has not been impeached previously, he does not enter in conflict with everybody, things like that). In other words, an approval is not equivalent to an election.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by adaMada

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

Yes, that is what I am saying. The veto is a very interesting feature, but so powerful that it must be handle with care. A veto not justified by reasonnable arguments looks arbitrary and discouraging : what can I do next time not to get a veto if I am not told the reasons ?

I think that with the two suggestions I made, the veto will be used rarely, but its existence will make everybody more deliberate.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by 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.

I see one case where the SMC approval is technically necessary ; it is when the SMC himself for military reasons want that we make peace. When the ennemi ask for peace, his approval seems not necessary even if his opinion is usefull.

[GodKing]

ada-
don't get to releaved that the comments have slowed down. I plan on disecting this document this weekend. I suspect that as people get the free time this weekend, they will do the same.

From what I have gleaned regarding abstains, I agree with unortho. What I have done in the past when proposing votes for constitutional items it this:

1) Yes
2) No
3) Abstain. I don't care enough about this to vote either way, but I want to count as quarum
4) Banana, just let me see the results without having to click on the button every time I look at this thread.

If the yes is less than or equal to the no + the abstains, it does NOT pass. It worked well for the times I used it, and I think this system could be used for all our votes. All it does is give people the fourth option (which is what many abstains are used for) and defines the choices in the ballot.

Perhaps I am just rambling on as I have not delved into this issue as you all obviously have.... just wait til this weekend.....

[Apocalypse]

Originally posted by DAVOUT
I approve the VP nominated, but that is not in contradiction with my not supporting the VP partipating in the veto. The VP cannot be distinguished, politically from the President ; the Senate approval, as I understand it, is only to ascertain that he has a profile in line with the job (he has not played ahead before, he has not been impeached previously, he does not enter in conflict with everybody, things like that). In other words, an approval is not equivalent to an election.

You can vote against the VP for whatever reason. The VP doesn't always have to vote with the president though. I don't believe this veto thing will have any real affect on the game anyway. It was a minor part of the constitution. Many of you seem to be missing the point of it. We want to keep the game running by addressing the concerns brought up in the failed revolution, and make sure election problems like those in terms 4 and 5 are fixed. You also must realize, politics don't play a large part of this game. At least not since Linney and Trip left.

On abstain. Why would someone abstain to watch the election? You can easily press the view results button. Voting abstain just to view the results also removes your chance to vote later. You might argue that pressing abstain will allow people to only press something one time to view the results every time but this argument is rather silly. If someone cares enough to continually check on the poll in multiple instances, they will probably vote either yes or no at some point in time.

[DAVOUT]

[QUOTE] Originally posted by Apocalypse

The VP doesn't always have to vote with the president though.
[QUOTE]
You bet ?

[QUOTE]
I don't believe this veto thing will have any real affect on the game anyway.
[QUOTE]
I am surprised that such an unimportant thing was incorporated in such an important text.

You also must realize, politics don't play a large part of this game. At least not since Linney and Trip left.

You misunderstood. I do not refer to political parties but to the fact that the President is elected, which is a truly political event, and that the VP is nominated by the President, and therefore, for the voters, cannot be politically separated from the Pres.

[Apocalypse]

The presidential election is largely decided on who is viewed most capable. Ninot won because Trip was blamed for everything bad that went on in the civilization. MWIA won largely because Ninot would only play turnthreads and WB is less experienced and because MWIA said he'd have a lot of free time this month.

[notyoueither]

Well DAVOUT, the VP is a heart beat, or a hard drive crash, away from full Presidential powers, so we did not see a problem in him being on the veto list. It is honestly not something I considered.

What we did discuss, at length, was how to best ensure a good relationship between the President and VP. For that reason, we chose the route of confirmation or rejection of appointment.

You may be correct. From time to time we may have a VP who is a creature of the President. I think it would be fairly uncommon though, given the participants of the game.

[DAVOUT]

NYE,

I appreciate all efforts made by the four of you, I am just, with many others, trying to fully understand what you did so that your purpose to solve problems once and for all be met. You have certainly anticipated that introducing a new feature makes the difficulty greater; I do not believe that you expected us just to applause and say OK that is fine, lets go with it.

The fact that the VP is potentially a President does not implies that he is a duplicate of the President and enjoys the same powers at the same time; he is just a substitute and has no powers which are not shared, literally, with the President.

In the absence of indications, I believe that the VP can be demoted at will by the President; if this is thru, the VP has no independence at all; this situation does not make of the VP a creature or a lackey, but creates a link of dependency that deprives the VP of the possibility to act freely.

I would like also to draw your attention on the delay during which the veto can be exercised, because I did not found it in the draft. I understand that there is a time limit allowed to the President to veto a Senate bill; it would not be reasonable to let such a Damocles sword above a bill after it has been promulgated.

[notyoueither]

No problems DAVOUT. I would hope that we be questioned closely on many of the things we did. I expected nothing less. It falls to us to explain what we did and why.

And I believe you may have found a hole. There is no time limit for the exercise of the veto. Normally, a veto by the president of the US would happen before proclamation (or whatever the US does). We have not provided for that event and thus the veto could be rather open ended... Well done. I will alert the others.

As for the VP, no I do not think the President can demote him once he is approved. No more than he could fire a judge. True, this is not stated openly, but there are some things that are implicit.

[Kloreep]

Looks good to me. I really like the new senate.

However, I would like to see a runoff clause added. As most of the ConCon members have pointed out, the smaller number of elected positions means more choice; however, this means we will likely be seeing more elections like the one for Science Minister. No candidate received a majority of the votes in that election; yet, because we have no runoffs, that one election was the final word between three candidates, all obviously liked.

Anyway, that's my one major concern, since it obviously has to go in the Constitution. (Yes, it could be an amendment, but I think it would be best to make sure this is included in every post-NewCon election.) There are other things that concern me as well, but they would all fall under the category of laws and should go in the Senate thread.

[notyoueither]

Kloreep, is the highest vote getter OK? That is what we have now. We did not intend to change this as far as i know.

[Kloreep]

What I mean is that I think if no candidate gets over 50% of the vote, a second election poll should be held between the two candidates who got the most votes.

Here's a fictional example: in the recent Science Minister Election, Thud and PlagueRat, who both ran a builder campaign focused on making our research good enough that we wouldn't have to buy so many techs, had split, with Thud getting 35% and PlagueRat 25%. Duddha, who campaigned on toning down science and waiting longer on raising science funding, gets 40%. Under our current system, Duddha wins.

But, in a runoff system, a new election would be held between Thud and Duddha (the two candidates with the most votes). Most of the voters who supported PlagueRat prefer Thud, so Thud now wins the election with around 60% of the vote.

This system isn't quite as good as preferential voting in a situation with four or more candidates, which is similiar, but eliminates candidates one at a time until it's down to two. Still, I think it would help such close (and crowded) elections go more in line with the majority's choice.

[notyoueither]

I see Kloreep. I really do, because I live with that in my country IRL.

But I have to ask, how many people would be in favour of prolonging the election period for these single month terms?

What happens if it is the presidential candidate? What happens to the turn chats while we pare down the number of candidates to the final 2 and wait 3 more days for the result?

[adaMada]

Kloreep,
Have no time to fully consider this now, and will do a LONG post with everything that's been covered so far in this thread once I get home tonight (Yes, I'm still alive ), but very quickly -- could there be a three-day runoff if and only if the winning canidate got less than 50% of the vote, and the runoff was between the two leading canidates?

-- adaMada

[UnOrthOdOx]

Originally posted by GodKing
ada-
don't get to releaved that the comments have slowed down. I plan on disecting this document this weekend. I suspect that as people get the free time this weekend, they will do the same.

From what I have gleaned regarding abstains, I agree with unortho. What I have done in the past when proposing votes for constitutional items it this:

1) Yes
2) No
3) Abstain. I don't care enough about this to vote either way, but I want to count as quarum
4) Banana, just let me see the results without having to click on the button every time I look at this thread.

If the yes is less than or equal to the no + the abstains, it does NOT pass. It worked well for the times I used it, and I think this system could be used for all our votes. All it does is give people the fourth option (which is what many abstains are used for) and defines the choices in the ballot.

Perhaps I am just rambling on as I have not delved into this issue as you all obviously have.... just wait til this weekend.....

I like the fourth option, and that is what I was getting at reguarding the interpretation.

WOW! someone actually agrees with me on this.

[DAVOUT]

I would hate to say anything able to reduce your happiness, but have you noticed that it is now possible to see the results without voting ?

[UnOrthOdOx]

It is possible, but not EASY. You have to click the button each time.

[DAVOUT]

The Constitution does not show any concern about the comfort of the voters, and no more for the materiality of the vote; therefore, the second abstain (the one to see the results) does not answer to a constitutional issue and can be suppressed, which leaves yes, no and abstain (included in the quorum).

What do you think ?

[UnOrthOdOx]

I think that without the Fourth option, people will vote abstain just to see the results. This is really not the issue at hand, however.

The fundamental disagreement here, is that GK and I are saying that if YES votes cannot surpass 50% of those that vote yes, no, OR abstain, the law should not pass. The way the constitution is written, Yes only has to surpass no, reguardless of the number of abstains.

And why shouldn't we take in the comfort of our voters? Would it not be better to make it as easy as possible? Would it not be a more accurate way of knowing just how many are watching that poll?

Again, at the end of the day, I really don't see this becomming a major issue. I looked, we have had over 130 polls. Of all of them I can count 1 poll where abstains would effect outcome, and 3 where they would not have made quorum (but that was an odd term with near 300 voting in the Pres election...)

[DAVOUT]

I see that you underestimate the people; a vast majority of them is perfectly able to understand that there is a button just to see the results (after all they read the Jungle Gazette), and that the abstain button means what the constitution means it means.

Your fundamental disagreement is as old as the vote; the system chosen here is not ideal, but all others have their drawbacks as well; this point alone would deserve a whole debate (without time limitation). I my opinion, we can accept the choice made by the authors (should I say fathers?) of the constitution because this system has been commonly used worldwide for centuries, and still is.

[UnOrthOdOx]

As I said earlier,

I don't agree with it, but I am not going to vote this down over it either. It is a minor thing that is not likely to effect many things. And, as long as there is a set interpretation, we can all act accordingly. I just disagree with that interpretation.

[ThePlagueRat]

Hi, I recall it's gonna be a majority of 2/3 of voters to get
the new one ratified. ( by the powers of the current law.)
Anyway, we should have to read it and compare it with the current one before we vote for it.

I think we should have a statement of
real democratic principles too. In the preamble perhaps.
In this way we can make it foolproof to undemocratic actions.


Many real constitutions from past centuries, had a lot of
ideals and principles in it. (not just practical stuff)
Those are playing a very important role today!

[Kloreep]

adaMada, I agree there shouldn't be a runoff if a candidate gets over 50% of the votes anyway; no point to it. I should have stated that, sorry.

[GodKing]

These are my comments. I am making them not because I say everything should be changed, but because I feel these points should be discussed. Overall, I fell that the members did an excellent job, and should be commended. I hope they do not take offence at how I “made it bleed”. Sorry about turning off the numbering, but Word kept trying to reformat all of my comments and instead of potentially having a something become miss-numbered, I felt it best to just turn them all off.

The President shall physically play the game and post the save of the game to the forum.

Nothing about posting reports.

The game shall be played on a regular and scheduled basis whenever possible,
In the event of a national emergency, the President may halt play so that the crisis can be resolved.

The word “may” implies that it is not a requirement to stop. I say it should be a requirement, so it should be changed to “should” or “will”.

If the President is unable to play the game on a regular and scheduled basis, the Vice President shall play it.

The opposite of my above comment, I say “shall” should be replaced as “will”.

The President must follow the instructions of the Senate and Ministers while playing the game unless the instruction is clearly erroneous, or made impossible and/or harmful by changed circumstances. If the President makes changes to the instructions due to these problems, he must follow the will of the Senate or Minister in making the changes.

“will” should be changed to “intent”.
If these problems constitute a “National Emergency”, then invoke clause I.b.i.

The President appoints temporary Ministers should any resign or be impeached. The appointment must be approved by a majority of the Senate.

I say that the president should appoint a temporary replacement, with a new election to be held for the position within a week of the position being vacant.

The Vice President assumes all powers and responsibilities of the President should the President be unable to perform.

What kind of time frame are we talking here?

The Supreme Military Commander
The Supreme Military Commander controls all units except settlers and workers.

Add “and Great Leaders” because the Senate controls them.

The Supreme Military Commander may not use a Great Leader to form an army without approval of the Senate. The Senate alone decides if and when a Great Leader may rush a project.

This contradicts to some extent the fact that the Senate controls the Great Leaders. This should be rewritten to “The SMC will immediately move a great leader to a place of safety. The creation of a Great Leader constitutes a National Emergency. The senate alone decides how a Great Leader is to be used, and the SMC will post orders for the GL’s use as determined by the Senate.”

The Supreme Military Commander must make a request for funds to upgrade any unit. The request must be first made to the Senate and may also be made to the President . If the Senate has not decided the issue prior to the game being played, the President may then decide the issue.

The bolded area can be changed to “public.” Please note, this section for SMC is written completely different than the same sections for Foreign Affairs and Domestic Minister’s.

The Supreme Military Commander may disband units under his or her control. A Great Leader may never be disbanded.

Second sentence is not appropriate here as the Senate controls the GL.

The Supreme Military Commander may appoint generals and deputies he or she feels necessary, and give them any and all powers he or she feels appropriate.

Generals, admirals, whatever. Specific defined words such as “deputies” should be used in the constitution. Let the deputies call themselves by whatever title is appropriate.


Not addressed under SMC or Domestic is the idea of purchasing/rushing Military units. Are the funds for such coming from SMC budget, Domestic budget, or whatever the senate decides.

The Foreign Affairs Minister

I think Ministry of Foreign Propaganda is a better name. Lets get creative here, along with the “Domestic Minister”, and have some fun.

The Foreign Affairs Minister has sole power over:
Right of Passage Agreements

Tact approval of the SMC should also be given, to make sure there is enough defensive units in place to protect us from a sneak attack. Remember the Persians!!!

Espionage.

Does this include placing spies? I would assume so. Even though the FAM has sole power, they do not have control of the purse strings.

Any trade, exchange, or gift that involves giving away gold must be approved by either the Senate or the President.

Remove the bolded part, as it can be abused and misinterpreted.

Any trade, exchange, or gift that involves giving away cities or workers must be approved by either the Domestic Minister or the President.

Giving away cities should be done only by the senate, or by will of at least three of the five executive (Pres, VP, SMC, FAM, DM). This needs to be worked on and discussed.

The Foreign Affairs Minister may appoint deputies and ambassadors as he or she feels necessary, and may give them any and all powers he or she feels appropriate.

See my comment above regarding Generals.

The Domestic Minister

Nothing in here about POP rushing.

The Domestic Minister may rush any project, but only with the approval of the Senate or President.

Change it to “….project, but with approval.” to remove the potential for misunderstanding.

The Domestic Minister may also create or alter any system for naming all cities, however that system or change must be approved by the senate.

Not just cities, but also provinces, geographical features, etc.

Deputy Ministers

I think judges can be Deputies, but not a Vice Minister. Jdjdjd did an excellent job for Ill de Rose right after the first Franco War (or whatever it was named).

Other Powers of the Executive Branch
Any reference in this Constitution to a “Minister” refers to the Supreme Military Commander, Foreign Affairs Minister, and Domestic Minister.

This is a definition. That is good, but it is the only one in the entire document. I think there are several things, such as “National Emergency” that should be defined. Definitions should be Article 1.

The Senate
law in its entirety, and gives three options: “yea”, “nay”, and “abstain”.
…..
Any “abstain” votes are considered solely for quorum purposes. “Abstain” votes may not be considered “yea” or “nay” votes.

I agree with much of what Unortho has been saying regarding this. The abstains in a quorum vote should count as NO as it means that the person does not care about this issue. There should also be a fourth option, a No Vote Vote, which means the person is voting to see the poll results, but does not want to count for quorum. See my earlier posts, along with Unortho’s, regarding this issue.

The Senate has the power to modify the quorum requirements or to perform a census without amending the Constitution.

I disagree with how quorum is determined. But because of this clause, I can live with it as I see it being changed. See my other posts regarding a rough idea for how to determine quorum. I particularly like the idea of making the senate something separate from citizens (who are the ministers), but not make it difficult for anybody to become a senator.

All citizens, not just senators, are allowed to vote in any poll.

Only senators should be able to vote in a poll that is for a senatorial position, such as “Supreme Senator” or “Senatorial Clerk” or whatever.

Senators may also propose motions, resolutions, orders, and decisions of the Senate. These are proposed in the same way as laws and follow the same rules. These carry the same authority as a law.

This means nothing. Why is it here?

The Senate has the sole power to declare war.

I added the word sole.

The Senate has the power to authorize drafts of citizens

This power should be in the hands of the Pres, SMC or Domestic, not the senate.

The Senate must keep records of all laws, motions, resolutions, and otherwise that are passed, amended, or removed. It may appoint a Clerk to do so.

Irrelevant to the constitution. This is Means and Methods, which the senate should determine on its own.

All powers not specifically given to the other branches are hereby given to the Senate.

I applaud this. We definitely need this clause.

The Court
The Court is composed of Five Judges.

Will members of the court please speak on this. I was on the committee that help develop the court system, and five seamed to be a good compromise at the time. However, now a days judging by the amount of work they have actually had to perform, I would reduce it to three. Please, current and past judges, comment in regards to this. If we are to change it, now is the time.

A Judge may not serve in any other government post.

I think a judge can be a deputy, as long as it does not interfere with their judicial duties.

The Court has the authority to view the poll results and/or votes cast of a contested poll for the passage of a law, decision, motion, or other Senate act; or any amendment’s ratification poll. This may be done to ensure that non-citizens did not cast votes in the poll. If it is found that a non-citizen cast a vote, that vote shall be removed from the final total.

Very touchy subject. If we redefine a citizen to include all of apolyton, with the senate being those who post a ‘here’ in a “term X census thread” then this is irrelevant.

The Court may view the votes cast in a contested election upon the agreement of a majority of the Court.

Redundant, just add the word “election” to the above clause.

In the event that the Court does view the record of who cast which votes, the Court is mandated to keep the individual identities of all lawful voters private.

Must also keep the vote of an individual private. This is implied, but I would prefer it to explicitly state this.

The Court shall keep a record of all disputes, issues, and hearings before the Court. The Court shall also keep a public record of the Constitution in its most current form. The Court may appoint a Clerk of the Court to keep these records.

Old constitutions, amendments, etc. should be kept as a record as well. LET US NOT FORGET OUR HISTORY.

Citizens
Any person who has registered to participate in this Democracy Game is considered a citizen.

Per my comments previously posted, and posted above, I think anybody on poly should be a citizen, making senators something special. Senator - an active participant in the demo game.

A citizen’s vote in a poll is to remain private. No individual with admin powers shall reveal the way a citizen voted.

This goes against what was done above with the judiciary.

Impeachment
Should a member of the Court be the subject of impeachment, he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The Vice President shall sit in his place for the sole determination of whether the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a “Judge” for that vote only.

Can be any member of the executive. Let the 5 people who are the executive volunteer and the remaining justices pick one.

After arguments are presented, the people may then debate the topic in the thread, and may request that the Court hold a public forum for arguments.
This public forum will be a chat that shall be moderated by at least one member of the Court.
A public forum must occur within 3 days after the impeached posts his answer to the Impeachment thread.

And May & Must contradict each other here.

A 2/3rd majority of the people must vote for removal for it to pass.
This poll shall last for 3 days.

Quorum?

Conflict of Laws
…
The Court may take the issue upon themselves at a later time to officially resolve any legal issue decided by the President.

This goes against III, 3, a

If the dispute is between the President and a Minister, and there is insufficient time to allow the Court to resolve the dispute, the matter may be resolved by a quick poll of the citizens, then the matter may be taken up at a later time by the Court to officially resolve it.

Better define a quick pole, and if there are to be any rules or regulations regarding it.

Elections
…
All newly elected Ministers begin their term of office on the 18th of the month. The previous Ministers remain in control of their offices until the same date.

Do we need to specify a time, such as 12:00 GMT?

Amendments
Amendments to this Constitution can be proposed by any citizen. An amendment is passed and made Minister when 2/3rds or more of the citizens approve of the change to the Constitution.

Is it just me, or do I not get it because there are problems with the way it is written. Can this be clarified? Thanks.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Geeze GK.

I am still haven't got into the entire NewCon in such detail yet.

Over your comments:

I definately agree with unilateral use of the word 'Deputies', and also would like to see a definitions list.

on keeping the CoL around for history sake

And yes, that last section is worded strangely.

As for the rewording stuff. I don't understand most of the diferrences.

Reminds me too much of trying to read and make sense over the contracts I work under in RL, and listening to my boss argue over this wording or that in the meetings. I don't get it, that is why I have a Contracts department tell me what such things mean in laymans terms. Just tell me what it means and let me go to work.

Now, the polling stuff is numbers, those I understand.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by adaMada

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

Yes, there must be reasons for the veto in a democracy, as I have already explained ; I want here to answer the question of implementation.
The executive who intends to initiate a veto has to convince another executive of the necessity to use the veto. The explanations given in this occurrence are the reasons which must be stated to enforce the veto.

[notyoueither]

Some very good comments GodKing. Thank you.

I hope that everyone understands that we cannot accomodate every wish, desire, or difference of interpretation. We are however examining many of the issues raised in this thread.

To address 1 specific question of yours GodKing:

I was on the committee that help develop the court system, and five seamed to be a good compromise at the time. However, now a days judging by the amount of work they have actually had to perform, I would reduce it to three. Please, current and past judges, comment in regards to this. If we are to change it, now is the time.

I would prefer it stay at 5. Life carries some of us off from time to time. 3 are required for the court to be effective. We have been touch and go sometimes getting the 3 as things stand.

OTOH. Your objection to judges being deputies... I requested that. I do not see how a justice could serve in a case involving his or her minister or ministry. If we were down to 3 active justices and 1 of them were a deputy... I may not be adverse to them being advisors (no power). What do you think?

Are there any of your other comments that you would like addressed here?

[Kloreep]

Good points, GodKing.

Originally posted by GodKing

Quote:

Any trade, exchange, or gift that involves giving away gold must be approved by either the Senate or the President.

Remove the bolded part, as it can be abused and misinterpreted.

I don't quite see how that could be misinterpreted. Also, wouldn't it be open to all kinds of abuse with the bolded part removed? ("My deputy said he approved of it, so it was perfectly legal.")

[ThePlagueRat]

I think GodKing's remarks should be reviewed
by the con con, and changes made if necessary.

I also think it's good for the constitution to bear an
old fashioned language with a bit of political philosophy touch. Like those of the 17-century social/political thesis
you find in old books.