Discussion - Should we change some of the voting rules in the CoL?

[Jonny]

As a concerned citizen, I think that some of the rules in the Code of Laws concering polls need to be changed.

First, I think that the minimum time limit for an offical poll should be changed from 3 days to 2 days. Why? Recently, we have been having turnchats/turnthreads every 2 or 3 days. By changing the minimum time limit from 3 to 2 days, we can ensure that most decisions will be made before the next turnchat, but people will still have a good amount of time to vote in the polls.

Second, I think the rule concerning the amount of time between a poll and a repoll should be changed. Currently, the amount of time is 3 weeks, but that is a really long time in the Demo game. After all, the game has been going only 5 or 6 weeks. I think that a repoll should be allowed starting 1 week after the expiration of the original poll.

Please discuss.

[Epistax]

I agree that our polls are the slowest part of our government currently. The roll of official polls are being discussed a bit-- I can see the desire to be able to do a poll between two turn chats. If the official poll has an obvious result, maybe a provision for a preemptive move by the minister can be passed. I wouldn't say any official, but maybe a 2/3's majority after 2 days would allow the minister to act *numbers out of the blue*.

Some polls are more important than others. If an amendment gets struck down due to a minor detail, and the author agrees, should they have to wait 3 weeks to add it? I don't think so. However we don't want a batch of frivolous polls showing up every week. If someone has a suggestion for this.. help!

[Kramerman]

Yes, there are many voting and polling issues that really need to be streamlined and/or clarified for the future. I would support almost any amendment that addresses these problems.

[wervdon]

How about splitting how we do it based on the type of poll? Normal polls still require 3 days. Quick polls, those related to a specific decision in a current or upcoming turn chat, can be as little as 24 hours.

The distinction between the two should be this: If the poll is for clarification of public opinion for something a minister or the president has the authority to do without a poll, then its a quick poll and not a normal official poll.

If we still find that polls are slowing us down because too many of them are not quick polls then we should consider enhancing the authority of the minister in question to act without the type of polls slowing us down.


----
Although since most important polls are listed seperately for their own voting rules (impeachment, ammendments, elections), it maybe a good idea to shorten the others in general. It just shouldn't be done without thinking it through so that some truelly important game-altering decision can be done in a quick 2 day poll that alot of our citizens might miss.

[Mr. President]

Anything that speeds up the decision-making process and allows the machinery of government to run smoothly is okay by me.

[mtgillespie]

The curent thread about the abstain option has an idea which would help in the case of amendments which need slight re-wording. I don't know how to post links, so in summary, on reaching a certain percentage of abstain votes, an immediate re-poll would be allowed. This would allow for people to agree with the principle of an ammendment, but not the specific wording or one specific clause, without significantly holding up the process.

[disorganizer]

@epi:
2/3 of what? which base values would be there for calculating a 2/3 majority? if you just base it on the poll itself, it would mean that if 9 ppl votes and 6 said yes versus 3 no, it would immediately take effect, even if 99% of our citizens didnt even vote.
this could be done with minimum participation rules. like for example we say a minimum of 2/3 of the active citizen census (or last election average) of citizens must vote yes.

@all:
running a poll for less than 2 days is an example of what should be regulated. if a poll runs shorter, many citizens will be cut off the decission making. you can prerequisite that every citizen has to be on forum every day.


message from phoenatica:
here, we have a quorum rule based on the last presidential election's participation. every poll having less participation than a defined quorum will not be binding. also, all binding polls have to be run for 2 days and must contain an abstain option.
of course, informational polls can be held at any time without these prerequisites, but are not binding for government.

[Harovan]

I also think, there shall be a minimum of overall votes to render a law or amendment valid. It can not be, that constitutional amendments, that attract less than 20% of the citizens, are called officially passed and accepted, although more than 80% refused even to vote, thus saying "go away with that stuff"

Constitutional amendments need at least 50% approval. I think, they shall have a minimum of 1/3 of the overall number of people voting (# taken at the start of the poll). Otherwise, our constitution will soon be a patchwork of unpopular amendments.

[Epistax]

Originally posted by disorganizer
@epi:
2/3 of what? which base values would be there for calculating a 2/3 majority? if you just base it on the poll itself, it would mean that if 9 ppl votes and 6 said yes versus 3 no, it would immediately take effect, even if 99% of our citizens didnt even vote.
this could be done with minimum participation rules. like for example we say a minimum of 2/3 of the active citizen census (or last election average) of citizens must vote yes.

Well as I said before, this would be a massive abstain. I understand your belief in the difference between not voting, and voting abstain, but they relies on the idea that everyone else does it that way. Some people wont vote abstain because they might sometime change their mind. Others will vote abstain because they don't know a thing about the poll. We need to awknoledge this is how some people do it.

There has to be something we can do

-- In light of recent events, a minimal number of voters per official election/poll might be a good idea.

[Spiffor]

I'm in total favor of forum quickpolls (24h delay). It will help polling the people about what they want to be done.
If the peopple can give feedback more often, they're likely to be more interested in this game.

[Proserpine]

I have sopme difficulty with this proposal, as I am one of those people who will miss a lot more polls if the time limit is reduced. Sorry, I just cannot be online here every day.

Possibly "something has to be done", although personally I thing the game is moving along well. The pace of turns will likel slow muchly, and why not, there will be more to do.

I definitely oppose any proposal for ministers to "anticipate" the results of official polls - that is not democracy.

[Epistax]

Let's prepare for a vote on various changes.
Suggested questions:

Should there be a requirement of a minimum number of voters to vote in an official poll for the result to be considered official? How many?

A) No
B) Yes, 50% of the last week's census
C) Yes, some other amount based on the last week's census
D) Yes, some other amount

Did you realized that abstain means no?

A) Nope
B) Uh-uh
C) WHAT!??!


Ok well one of them at least

[Jonny]

*bump*

Surely other people wish to voice their opinion on this important subject, no?

[GodKing]

I say we let anyone vote, at any time.

No real fealings either way on the other issues.