Quorum Call for Term VI

E_T · November 14, 2002, 13:35

As we have (at the moment) 46 people who have voted in the Presidential Elections, we will need to know who they are for possible senate Quorum Calls on votes.

Please post here that you voted in the election. This is also for anyone who might wish to join the game during the next term.

[EDIT] making the list..[/edit]
Current Senate Members:
Aggie
Arnelos
adaMada
GheingisFarb
E_T
Thud
Torbjorn
civman2000
GodKing
DAVOUT

E_T

DAVOUT · November 14, 2002, 13:51

The quorum is a quantity, not a list; it results from the poll for election of the President. Votes are private as per the constitutions (old and new).

GodKing · November 14, 2002, 13:52

I voted..... not that it really means anything.

joncnunn · November 14, 2002, 14:16

Do you really think we might have a situation where an offical poll gets 11 or less votes?

(And I voted)

DAVOUT · November 14, 2002, 14:28

As anybody can propose a new law, it is well possible that some proposal interest a very small number of people; the quorum is just made to make sure that any voted law has retained the attention of at least 25% of people having shown their interest in the democratic life in voting in the poll for President election.

civman2000 · November 14, 2002, 14:30

I voted

Torbjorn · November 14, 2002, 14:39

I have also voted

E_T · November 14, 2002, 15:05

This is for several reasons:

1) to see who is still active in the game
2) For the possible future Senate leader to know who to PM if a critical vote is up for consideration and still might not have voted. That way if someone is away and checking things on a semi-regular basis, they will be aware of issues that might require their attention.

With the New Con coming into effect shortly, this could be a nice thing to have.

Also, our current sheet of who is in the game is way outdated (200+ people) and this will allow us to see who is still playing.

Quote:

The quorum is a quantity, not a list; it results from the poll for election of the President. Votes are private as per the constitutions (old and new).

Yes they are private, I'm not asking for HOW they voted, just IF they voted or not.

E_T

UnOrthOdOx · November 14, 2002, 15:11

The CivGroups, though is rather accurate as to the active member list.

PM'ing for votes...how would this proposed leader know if person A is the one to have not voted yet? I am against this whole concept of creating a list. Always have been. Quorum means you need X number of people to pass whatever law. Not these SPECIFIC people.

And what is wrong with using other methods of getting peoples attention to certain votes? There is a NewZupdate that is on the main page...there is a Gazette that E-mails roughly 70 people...if they want to vote, they can. I don't need any more PM's cluttering my already overstuffed inbox.

GhengisFarb™ · November 14, 2002, 16:01

Yeah, I'm not very supportive of a list either. What if Aggie decides to kill every third person on the list for sport?

Epistax · November 14, 2002, 17:05

By your picture Ghengis, I think you are far more likely to. That is, if Mr Bont doesn't stop you.

roadcage · November 14, 2002, 17:29

I, Ssgt roadcage (retired) do hereby attest and affirm that I have voted for President (...witheld...)

Panzer32 · November 14, 2002, 17:55

Wouldn't quorom be the number of people who voted in the poll, including the abstain option? If it is not, I see no functional purpose for the abstain option. Also: There may be some people who vote in some polls and not others (I did last term), and some who are too busy to vote. Therefore quorum should be the number of people who voted in the poll.

Hot_Enamel · November 14, 2002, 17:59

I Voted

adaMada · November 14, 2002, 18:04

I voted (in some of the elections at least) and am active, but I agree with those who say we probably couldn't use this for much else besides informational purposes -- our membership is constantly changing. What about someone like UnOrthO, who is traveling and can only be active some of the time? We've had many people leave and return, and even people who are active throughout see changes in their level of activity.

I'd also agree that the CivGroups work pretty well for now, though I imagine that too will eventually overflow with members

.

-- adaMada

DAVOUT · November 14, 2002, 18:15

This is useless. There is no Senate leader whatsoever. Even the fact that we vote or not is private. I will not tell whether I voted or not. So the end result has no meaning, and is possibly against the law.

realpolitic · November 14, 2002, 18:41

I voted.

Arnelos · November 14, 2002, 18:44

I'm still alive, I voted. I think that counts.

UnOrthOdOx · November 14, 2002, 18:47

This is absurd!

There is NO reason for this list to be created, and I take offense at having it called the 'Current Senate Members' list.

From the NewCon:

1 All citizens who are not currently a Minister, President, Vice- President or Judge are Senators

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

The very formation of this list for the purposes of listing a Senate is against the NewCon. The CivGroups list IS the members of the Senate, by law. QUORUM is not a set list of members, but a minimum requirement based on the number of votes obtained in the Presidential thread. We are not required to post in some silly thread to become a member of the Senate! The members of the Senate are anyone except those voted into government. I call for this to be terminated at once!

Hot Mustard · November 14, 2002, 18:51

I voted, but Unorthodox is right.

Panzer32 · November 14, 2002, 19:14

Yeah, thats what I was trying (unsucessfully) to say...

Nimitz · November 14, 2002, 19:26

Yup Unorthodox is right we don't need this list.

MrWhereItsAt · November 14, 2002, 19:55

This thread is NOT pointless.

It reminded me to actually vote.......

Y'see I never tend to look at the topped threads - 'cos I topped them.

Thanks E_T!

GhengisFarb™ · November 14, 2002, 19:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
By your picture Ghengis, I think you are far more likely to. That is, if Mr Bont doesn't stop you.

Oh my word, he spoke to me! He actually spoke to me!

(I was starting to think Epistax had placed me on his ignore list.)

Besides, Mr Bont is dead. One of my star employees stopped in time for my men to gun him done.

Ah, I miss Homer. Even added a new story to his house for that piece of good work.

Epistax · November 14, 2002, 19:59

[nice place to hold a conversation]

Have you been trying to reach me?

GhengisFarb™ · November 14, 2002, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Epistax
[nice place to hold a conversation]

Have you been trying to reach me?

Not really hard, you haven't done anything in the $Mini-Game and NYE is wanting the government to confiscate your lands. UnOrthO has been eyeing your holdings with a greedy eye too...........

E_T · November 14, 2002, 20:39

Quote:

Originally posted by DAVOUT
This is useless. There is no Senate leader whatsoever. Even the fact that we vote or not is private. I will not tell whether I voted or not. So the end result has no meaning, and is possibly against the law.

Because there isn't one now, doesn't mean that there might not be one. The New Con does allow for the senate to have some form of structure to it and that would seem to me to have someone who would be in a position to organize it.

E_T

Vlad Antlerkov · November 14, 2002, 20:49

Here (and voted), but not really here. I'm really feeling the crunch of academic responsibilities, which is why I haven't been around. So don't nominate me for anything that requires me to actually be active.

rush · November 14, 2002, 21:44

Voted too.

nz_upy · November 14, 2002, 22:37

E_T can you not create a controversy for one week.
*sigh*

BTW I voted too