Constitional Congress discussion continued

notyoueither · August 12, 2002, 02:54

OK. I could put this up for approval. I think a poll on this should receive 67% yes counting no and abstain. If abstains are ignored for that vote, the whole thing could be a non starter and hence a waste of time.

Let me know what you think. Prior discussion can be found here

---

Constitutional Convention: Enabling Act

The Code of Laws will be rewritten by a select committee who will return to us with a completed document(s) once they are finished. They may return to stage quick, unofficial polls to guide them in the meantime if they feel a question warrants it.

The select committee will consist of 4 people. They will come to some form of agreement among themselves before they return. That means that at least 3 of them will agree that they are finished before they return to present the finished document(s).

The members of the select committee will be nominated by 2 other citizens of Apolytonia and must themselves be citizens of Apolytonia. A person is a citizen of Apolytonia for the purposes of this nomination process if their user name appears on the citizen list as of the beginning of the nomination process (the opening of the thread).

A thread will be opened for the purposes of these nominations. It will be maintained by the opener by updating the initial post with information regarding various nominations in progress. The thread will be open for nominations for no less than 7 days and no days beyond that once 4 nominees are obtained. In other words, it will be open for 7 days or as long as it takes to get 4 nominees. The nominee must accept the nomination by posting in the thread for that nomination to be final.

If more than 4 people are nominated prior to the end of 7 days, then all nominees will stand for public selection in a multiple choice poll. Those 4 nominees with the highest number of votes for them will form the select committee. In the event of a tie for a given total, the nominee(s) who accepted their nomination(s) at the earlier date and time will be deemed to have won and will go on to the select committee.

The current Code of Laws will be replaced with a Constitution with high standards for amendment. It will include general organization of the state and general principles of good government for us to hold dear as well as other elements the select committee deem warranted. The Constitution will be the supreme law of Apolytonia.

The Code of Laws will continue as a junior, and specific body of laws. Repeal of old laws and passage of new laws will be possible with lower standards of agreement. The intent is that laws would be relatively easy to pass and repeal as the situation warrants and that current circumstances are best served by laws which are easier to implement and change. Any law will have to abide by the principles of the Constitution to remain valid.

The completed document(s) will be posted for public discussion and may possibly be amended by the select committee prior to being put to a vote. The discussion of the new document(s) will last no less than 7 days.

Once discussion is completed, the completed document(s) will be put to public vote in a poll(s). That vote will last 7 days. There shall be no other options than yes or no. It may be desired by the members of the select committee to put more than 1 poll into effect. For instance, there may be one poll for the main body of the Constitution and 1 extra for each original amendment if they decide that would be a better way to present the matter. Additionally, there may a single poll (or more) for the acceptance of a new code of laws. 67 percent of the voters must approve of any Constitutional item by voting yes before that item will be be passed. The percentage approval for the Code of Laws should be defined by the new Constitution. If the main body of the Constitution is not passed then no other items from this process are passed either.

Should this project be successfully concluded, the new Constitution may then stand in it's own right. It will contain a statement near the beginning that it has amended the prior Code of Laws in it's entirety.

All significant clauses of the original Code of Laws and it's amendments should be addressed and included in the new Constitution, it's amendments and any accompanying Code of Laws.

/Edit. My spelling sucks. Someone proof read that for me will ya?

kring · August 12, 2002, 03:19

Good job, nye.

EDIT/ 1bigcommunity has just started such a procedure yesterday for the same reason for their DG that is just starting up. I made similar points there like you have made here.

I would encourage each separate amendment be voted on independently of the Constitution.

civman2000 · August 12, 2002, 09:54

hmmm...i'm not sure. How will the committee be chosen? I have no doubt there will be far more than 4 people than get nominated, and it would be unfair to just pick the first four because they were the first online to accept their nominations.

Epistax · August 12, 2002, 10:09

civman that's in there. If there are more than 4 people selected, then there is a multiple choice poll between all the nominees, four highest go on. And if there's a tie there-- are you sure it's accept nominations first? I think he means nominated first.

I like it

civman2000 · August 12, 2002, 10:28

oops, missed that. How long will the poll last? 5 days?

Togas · August 12, 2002, 11:43

This is a very safe and legal way to go about changing our Code of Laws or Constitution or whatever people prefer calling it. I am in support.

I just have one question ... why only four people? I'm not saying I'm in favor of more (a smaller group is more efficient), I'm just curious why that number was chosen. I guarantee you that we'll have a lot more than four wanting to be included in this.

--Togas

Captain · August 12, 2002, 11:48

reminds me of a "Royal Commission" or a focus group. I'm sure other people could draw up their own version of the Constitution and COL, and PM it to the group, and hopefully they'd consider it if it has merit.

Epistax · August 12, 2002, 12:04

Four people is good because it means that if there is a tie on an issue, someone needs to be persuaded to switch, and compromise. If we had five people, no compromises, one side just wins. And yes, four is a nice small number.

Captain · August 12, 2002, 12:08

the commission should probably have a look at Phoenatica's structure too, could get some good ideas and see where they encountered problems.

I'm in support of the idea of the Convention even if many people are upset they don't get onto it. the benefits seem to outweigh the negs.

Kloreep · August 12, 2002, 20:45

I like this idea. At the very least it will be a good framework, and will jumpstart the new constitution; at the most, it will only need to be tweaked a little by the public before being quickly passed.

GodKing · August 12, 2002, 21:06

Interesting. I have no objections.

notyoueither · August 12, 2002, 21:20

I set it on accepts nomination, because that would be when the nomination is final. It could easily be the date and time of the first nominating post though. People could help by expressing their preference(s) on this and other questions in replies in this thread.

How long the poll? Oh, darn. Good catch civman. I'm of the opinion that any poll involving the Constitution should run 7 days. That way all of our citizens are given an opportunity to express themselves when they drop by in their weekly schedules.

The number 4? Well, it's even, so that forces consensus and hopefully makes the final document(s) more likely to be accepted. It could be 6. Many more and the process likely starts to bog down due to scheduling, etc.

I think 4 is a nice, managable number. They should of course solicit and accept input from other interested parties.

civman2000 · August 12, 2002, 21:28

I think 6 would be better. 4 means that all decisions are either 3-1 or unanimous, but I think it is important that there are more "shades" to the decisions. In the US SUpreme Court, it has a different meaning if a decision is 9-0, 8-1, 7-2, 6-3, or 5-4. Although we do not need that many shades, I think we need more than just 2 and 6 provides 3 while not being a huge amount of people.

Epistax · August 12, 2002, 21:34

Well how do you want them to organize? If there's 4 of them, they could likely chat on occasions. If there's 6, they will have nothing more than the ability to send suggestions to eachother, until people finally agreeing to things to make things simpler.

There are five justices. How long do you think it takes for all of them to read one message from the other?
4 is better... 6 is worse..

MrWhereItsAt · August 13, 2002, 03:23

I have to say that a lot of people have expressed a preference for reworking our Laws, and this seems the best way proposed to do so .

I like what I read so far, including having only 4 Committee members - they are there not to make decisiions for themselves, but to listen to what everyone says; disagreements should be rare, and there can always be a poll. Never lose sight of the aim to rework the Constitution to suit the people of Apolytonia - not just yourself.

Seven days sounds fine for both nominations and confirmations via voting.

Sirotnikov · August 13, 2002, 05:29

I support the idea.

Moreso, I'd like to suggest myself as a member of those 4.

I promise to clear time for it.

Sirotnikov · August 13, 2002, 05:30

I think that we should make laws defining the general structure of power - not the exact seats and ways and such.

Sirotnikov · August 13, 2002, 05:31

I also think that the drafts should be regularly published and discussed.

Epistax · August 13, 2002, 08:17

jdjdjd · August 13, 2002, 13:41

I must reiterate, that it may be best to amend and improve what we have, creating this new CoL is going to be time consuming with many polls and thats months from now after the initial set up is done, and this committee, will they commit to months and months of being involved?

I don't mean to sound negative, I'm trying to be practical...what you create months down the road may no longer be pertinent....we already have a code of laws that allows flexibility and improvement and can be made to match what is currently pertinent so long as those who wish change are willing to do the work...and it can be done, just like was done for the Court and Impeachment amendments.

UnOrthOdOx · August 13, 2002, 13:50

While I agree with jdjdjd on the theory that we shouldn't need to rewrite the whole thing. Perhaps this commitee would be the best at focusing on what needs to be changed. An organized group where currently we only have a few individuals trying their own ideas. Have these guys appointed to working out the changes that need to take place.

Sirotnikov · August 13, 2002, 17:58

I am willing to commit to being involved.

I think that the CoL shouldn't consist of a single document.

It should have 3 parts.

Constitution:
The most basic definition of the game, the goals and the spirit of law.
Can not be changed, but ammended with a great majority of the people (80%?) and the court. once accepted, the court must defend it.

Basic Laws:
Laws definind the most important things, like government positions, elections, currency and civil rights.
demand a large majority (60%?) and the court can demand change if they are unconstitutional.

Laws:
simple laws which do not have a huge and significant effect on game play. could be many in character laws, which have little real meaning. demand a regular majority. can be cancelled if they are unconstitutional.

Sirotnikov · August 13, 2002, 17:59

I also agree that we shouldn't necessarily give the comitte a right to define everything, but rather they will be 100% incharge of giving recommendations.

GodKing · August 13, 2002, 18:05

I would suggest, that even it it was rewritten, the meat would still be the same, only how it is organized.

There might be some radical changes - for example, I can easiely see the minister of imperial expansion position being deligated some day to say... the city planner.

But many other things, such as term limits, will still be the same, only it will be easy to find and much easier to understand.

Does this rambling make sence....

If OPD wins the election, and not I, for City Planner, then I would be more than happy to donate the time I would have spent as CP helping on this. I do suspect however, that jdjdjd is correct, if it occures, it will take a long time to do it right.

notyoueither · August 13, 2002, 18:16

I guess I'll brush it up and put it to a poll later this pm if there is no consensus for revision.

jd, I agree that throwing out what we have and starting over from scratch would be unproductive. Hence All significant clauses of the original Code of Laws and it's amendments should be addressed and included in the new Constitution, it's amendments and any accompanying Code of Laws

I view this as a search and discovery mission to find the problems we have not yet encountered, to generalize the case specific nature of the current supreme law, and to break out those aspects which would be better placed in subordinate rules and statutes.

It would taske 7 days to enable the process, 7 more for nominations, 7 more for the poll to finalize the select committee. Except... The nominations thread could begin the day after the enabling poll if support seems to be there. So that's down to 2 weeks to get the ball rolling.

From our experience, it would be reasonable to conclude that the committee would take a week or 2 to sort itself out and get down to issues. A couple of weeks (or 3) after that they might be able to come back to us with some product. There isn't that much there to review and revise. 2 weeks after that we most likely will have the new system in place.

In the mean time, certainly the game can continue. Amendments that are needed can be passed. No reason why not.

To summarise. I agree, amend and improve. That is the intent. It is just that to me it seems that a comprehensive amendment would suit our purposes better than a piece meal approach. I for one would like to put this material behind us and get on with the game.

notyoueither · August 13, 2002, 18:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Sirotnikov
I also agree that we shouldn't necessarily give the comitte a right to define everything, but rather they will be 100% incharge of giving recommendations.

Exactly. And a very good reason why they should come back with a main body that is sure of passing and amendmends that can be picked and chosen from.

Also why there is provision for discussion.

civman2000 · August 13, 2002, 18:32

I like siro's idea.

notyoueither · August 13, 2002, 18:35

Quote:

Originally posted by GodKing
I do suspect however, that jdjdjd is correct, if it occures, it will take a long time to do it right.

Anyone who accepts a nomination should be prepared for a long haul. As the court has experienced, once you get into these things any given issue may require careful consideration.

notyoueither · August 13, 2002, 18:38

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
I like siro's idea.

Yes, I do too.

Constitution > Laws > Regulations.

Regulations would maybe be passed by the executive and subject to protest over turning by 51% poll?

civman2000 · August 13, 2002, 18:43

I see no reason to not just let the people pass laws and regulations alone...it's been like that all along and there's no need to change that.