FORMAL PROPOSAL: CONSTITUTIONAL CHANGE to secotion 2:1

Flemingovia

Flemingovia

TNPer
-
-
I propose a change of the consitution from:

Section 2: Amendment Procedure

1. The Constitution and Bill of Rights may only be changed via constitutional amendment with the approval of three quarters of votes cast in the Assembly in a vote lasting seven days.
Click to expand...

to

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 in the Assembly in a vote lasting seven days.
Click to expand...

This reqiuires a three quarters majority of votes cast.
 
rationale: Changing the constitution is a serious matter. But we need to balance the need for concensus with the need for change.

As things stand, a small number of RA nations who set their hearts against any sort of change can effectively block any reform or change in the region.

This change in legislation means that the balance is still in favour of the status quo, but there is slightly more chance of reform getting through the RA.

NS is a dynamic game, and we need to be able more easily to alter our laws and rights to adapt to that changing situation.

Bad changes will still be voted down, but good ones have more of a chance of success.

Do I find a second?
 
I agree in principle. I did think it would be useful to do the math. With 40 RA members voting, 3/4 is 30 and 2/3 is 26. When there are 20 voters, 3/4 is 15 and 2/3 is 14. (Figures are rounded up to the next whole voter.) So, the effectiveness of this proposal is improved when RA membership increases beyond 40.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I agree in principle. I did think it would be useful to do the math. With 40 RA members voting, 3/4 is 30 and 2/3 is 26. When there are 20 voters, 3/4 is 15 and 2/3 is 14. (Figures are rounded up to the next whole voter.) So, the effectiveness of this proposal is improved when RA membership increases beyond 40.
Click to expand...
The revision is modest, because I wanted to keep the principle that there should be a good majority in favour of change. But I do feel that change is necessary, so want to make it easier than it is at present.
 
I would suggest that while we're at it we make that clause consistent with the rest of the constitution and say "two-thirds majority seven day vote of the Regional Assembly."
 
Eluvatar:
I would suggest that while we're at it we make that clause consistent with the rest of the constitution and say "two-thirds majority seven day vote of the Regional Assembly."
Click to expand...
Thats a good idea.
 
Eluvatar:
I would suggest that while we're at it we make that clause consistent with the rest of the constitution and say "two-thirds majority seven day vote of the Regional Assembly."
Click to expand...
That would require a two thirds majority of the ENTIRE Regional Assembly, not just of those voting.

That could make constitutional changes HARDER to pass, not easier :fish:

Worked example:

Current: 100 ra members: 70 voting: Current majority needed 53:17
My proposal: 100 RA members: 70 voting: majority needed: 47:24
Elu's proposal: 100 RA members:70 voting: Majority needed: 67:3

(I am not good at maths, so the specific figures are rough.

In other words, to avoid giving the legalists in the region room to challenge, I would like to keep in the phrase "of votes cast", as at present.
 
No.

Article II:
4. A fractional majority vote is a vote in which at least that fraction of those voting for or against a measure vote for it. Fractions which may be invoked include two-thirds, three-fifths, and three-fourths.
Click to expand...

A two-thirds majority vote is explicitly defined the way we want it to be defined.
 
This Proposal For a 2/3 vote requirement does not seem that radical, though im not sure if it would be as effective with Current low Regional Assembly membership.
 
One way to assure that the total number of votes cast is higher is to go back to what was used a long time ago - require RA members to 'opt-in' for emails informing them of the upcoming votes, not just forum PMs.

That way, every RA member is informed, even those RA members who only occasionally visit the board.
 
We don't have any RA members who only occasionally visit the board because our activity laws have removed them.

Perhaps that should be the first law we change after we have passed Flem's proposed correction.
 
Eluvatar:
No.

Article II:
4. A fractional majority vote is a vote in which at least that fraction of those voting for or against a measure vote for it. Fractions which may be invoked include two-thirds, three-fifths, and three-fourths.
Click to expand...

A two-thirds majority vote is explicitly defined the way we want it to be defined.
Click to expand...
knowing the propensity of TNP folks to dredge through years of threads to discover precedent, and to appeal to long dead legislation, I would much rather it was spelled out in the actual article.

Safer that way.
 
flemingovia:
knowing the propensity of TNP folks to dredge through years of threads to discover precedent, and to appeal to long dead legislation, I would much rather it was spelled out in the actual article.

Safer that way.
Click to expand...
A precedent that is at odds with the constitution is no precedent at all.

If the region is unable to implement the constitution as written, an additional/redundant definition of a fraction vote is hardly going to make a difference either way.

Would vote for it regardless though.
 
yes, I see that issue.

damn, the more I look at this the more I realise we should have passed the Flemingovian constitution.
 
Except we went and developed a phrasing which is explicitly defined to do what we want. I'm suggesting we just use it.
 
Actually, it would be more of an Anarchy then a Dictatorship. I believe Richard Henry Lee was correct when he asserted: "To say that a bad government must be established for fear of anarchy is really saying that we should kill ourselves for fear of dying".

We have a bad government and yet refuse to abolish it because we're afraid of what might happen next, so we live on with it and not ever changes. Quite silly, when you think about it.
 
No, nationstates does not allow for a region to be in anarchy. A Delegate has power whether there is an offsite government or not.
 
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.
 
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...
Im sure we are trying our best, The problem is we don't all think the same way if we did then we would be a Dictatorship. :duh:
 
Eluvatar:
And throwing the whole thing out would basically mean dictatorship of the Delegate.
Click to expand...
Not if it is first replaced by a more efficient constitution that takes effect seamlessly.

It would be fairly easy to construct a Constitution that is about half the size, or less of the present constitution, more efficient and easier to implement in the event of low activity; and, at the same time maintain the principles of separation of powers and balance of powers. It's not that difficult.

The problem is that when people get all legalistic about it, a constitution starts growing like a strangling fungus, but there are ways to prevent that.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
Some of you are very lazy. You're unwilling to do any of the hard work to build a wide-ranging consensus on anything.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm calling total bullshit. We've been working for months on supposed Constitutional changes and nothing has gotten accomplished even in the slightest. All we've done is take a bunch of informal votes and from that determined that, yup, people really want to change our current laws, like we didn't already know that.

The current voting requirement numbers do not "protect democracy" they protect the minority to the extreme, to the point that if only a handful of people object nothing gets passed. As it so happens, we have a group of people who will vote against any change in the Constitution if its not exactly what they want to the letter; Grosseschnauzer is included in this group, I can safely say. It is because of this phenomenon that we've not passed a major and wide changing law in years. Fucking years!

This isn't being lazy, this is being reasonable.
 
I support the 2/3rds RA vote for amendments, but something has to change in the quorum rules because nothing will get passed if more than 1/3rd of the RA is AWOL.
 
Blue Wolf II:
Grosseschnauzer:
Some of you are very lazy. You're unwilling to do any of the hard work to build a wide-ranging consensus on anything.
Click to expand...
Ok, I'm calling total bullshit. We've been working for months on supposed Constitutional changes and nothing has gotten accomplished even in the slightest. All we've done is take a bunch of informal votes and from that determined that, yup, people really want to change our current laws, like we didn't already know that.

The current voting requirement numbers do not "protect democracy" they protect the minority to the extreme, to the point that if only a handful of people object nothing gets passed. As it so happens, we have a group of people who will vote against any change in the Constitution if its not exactly what they want to the letter; Grosseschnauzer is included in this group, I can safely say. It is because of this phenomenon that we've not passed a major and wide changing law in years. Fucking years!

This isn't being lazy, this is being reasonable.
Click to expand...
Grosseschnauzer:
. 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.
Click to expand...

I think that is quite unfair and over the top grosse. The fact of the matter is that there has been a lot of sharing of ideas and proposals to amend the consitution in recent months. Elu has been leading the way on that (IMHO). Achieving a 2/3rd majority is till achieving consensus. We are only changing it to make the job a small bit easier. If we were changing it to a simple majority could change the constitution, then I would be inclined to agree with you.

This constitution has flaws, sure, no doubt less flaws that the one before, the issue in my opinion is that people are losing faith in this system. Constitutional change will of course require consensus, and will of course involve many people in our region. Its not 'lazy'. I don't agree with BW that we need to completely abolish the current constitution and start with scratch. He is right that few reforms have been successful recently, and that there are some who will vote against any change. However, all voices are important in a political debate, labelling people as "lazy", "nay sayers" or whatever is not very productive.

It has already been moved to a vote, I shall get in contact with the Speaker to let him know.
 
Not if it is first replaced by a more efficient constitution that takes effect seamlessly.

It would be fairly easy to construct a Constitution that is about half the size, or less of the present constitution, more efficient and easier to implement in the event of low activity; and, at the same time maintain the principles of separation of powers and balance of powers. It's not that difficult.

The problem is that when people get all legalistic about it, a constitution starts growing like a strangling fungus, but there are ways to prevent that.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I believe that is what Elu is saying, is that we should have a new constitution to replace the old one. Not simply 'disband' it, ruling without one until a new one is written.
 
mcmasterdonia:
Not if it is first replaced by a more efficient constitution that takes effect seamlessly.

It would be fairly easy to construct a Constitution that is about half the size, or less of the present constitution, more efficient and easier to implement in the event of low activity; and, at the same time maintain the principles of separation of powers and balance of powers. It's not that difficult.

The problem is that when people get all legalistic about it, a constitution starts growing like a strangling fungus, but there are ways to prevent that.
Click to expand...

I completely agree. I believe that is what Elu is saying, is that we should have a new constitution to replace the old one. Not simply 'disband' it, ruling without one until a new one is written.
Click to expand...
Yes that is what I'm saying.

As to this bill, I do strongly suggest my version to avoid the possibility of another court decision declaring that abstentions count as if they were nay votes.
 
There seems to be a several people who support moving this to a vote. However, to avoid any unfortunate misunderstandings caused by idle chatter in these threads, I would like to ask that Regional Assembly members explicitly move to vote on something and explicitly second on it in these situations. If that is Hileville and Blue Wolf's or other's intention, they should do so and I will promptly open a vote.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top