FORMAL PROPOSAL: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE to secotion 2:1

Grosseschnauzer:
Given that veto-proof laws can be enacted by 60 percent of the vote, it defies common sense that only a two-thirds of those who participate in a vote can amend the constitution, especially with the low quorum requirement (30 per cent of the membership.)
If only 30 per cent of a 40 member RA vote (12), then 2/3rds of 12 is 8 and 3/4th is 9, if there are no abstentions.
Something that could easily happen during those cyclic slow periods we always have.
If Flem, your proposal was 2/3rds of the entire RA then a lower percentage would make sense. But we've been able to frequently adopt amendments to this Constitution, with the 3/4ths majority. It is contrary to democratic norms not to require a broad consensus on changes to the fundamental document that controls how the region chooses to govern itself.
Some of you are very lazy. You're unwilling to do any of the hard work to build a wide-ranging consensus on anything. It's easier to change the requirements than to do the work to figure out a consensus. The fact is, by the way, that the constitution, as it is now, is a much more improved document than the original that was adopted as a revision of the last constitution. Can it be improved more? I'm sure it can; but many of those who just want to get rid of this one without a clear alternative that has broad support, I suspect have ulterior motives in mind, such as, perhaps, the end of any democratic government in The North Pacific in favor of their disctatorship of the month.
One thing a lot of you forget is that a lot of long time players may not participate in this government, but they choose to be in TNP because we've had a pretty stable system and we've been able to right the ship when rogues try their thing. Some of us pay attention to that point, I'm not sure others do.
Click to expand...
I don't know where to begin with this post, really, so I will just content myself with saying that you do not build consensus by calling people a bunch of lazy conspirators.

We have been poncing around with the constitution for months now without actually getting anywhere. This is a very modest change, but it does send out a message with it - TNP is in the mood for change, and there is only so long that you can fob us off with "informal polls". It is slightly easier to effect change with a two thirds majoriry - which i think is the root of your problem, Grosse. Anything that makes change more likely brings a knee-jerk attack from you.

As far as the amendment goes, I would still rather have in there the phrase "of votes cast".

How about

Section 2: Amendment Procedure

1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights may only be changed via constitutional amendment with the approval of two thirds of votes cast (excluding abstentions) in the Assembly in a vote lasting seven days.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top