When was this added to the Syntagma?

[Epistolary Richard]

I was just curious, when was the following section added to the Syntagma?

Rules relating to proposing legislation, voting and ratification
The ratification of legislation, amendments or proposals is to be passed by a majority vote of the Civitates. The amends of any and all constitutional issues must be presented publicly and voted on by the Civitates and Curators in the Curia, all which carry a single vote.
- Any Civitate, Patrician, Senatorii, Urbanii or Curator can propose and submit legislation for discussion and subsequent voting.
- The Consuls can veto any legislation if the two Consuls oppose it. The Praetors can also veto legislation only by unanimous consent of the Praetors. If a Praetor or Consul member happens to be absent, until a three day period has passed after the proposition has been introduced, his vote is considered null.
- In any voting, the time span duration will be exactly 168 hours.(1 week).
- Votes shall require a minimum of 40% of registered active members of a rank of civitate or higher, the number of eligible voters and required votes to be calculated by the Syntagma Curator
- A margin of at least 50% +1 must be reached to pass a vote. a 50-50 vote is considered invalid and must abide by the Syntagma guidelines for a revote.

Because in the draft Syntagma which was put up for discussion, we which asked Sulla to install, it wasn't there:

Rules relating to proposing legislation, voting and ratification
The ratification of legislation, amendments or proposals is to be passed by a majority vote of the Civitates. The amends of any and all constitutional issues must be presented publicly and voted on by the Civitates and Curators in the Curia, all which carry a single vote.
- Any Patrician, Senatorii, Urbanii or Curator can propose and submit legislation for discussion and subsequent voting.
- The Consuls can veto any legislation if the two Consuls oppose it. The Praetors can also veto legislation only by unanimous consent of the Praetors. If a Praetor or Consul member happens to be absent, until a three day period has passed after the proposition has been introduced, his vote is considered null.
- In any voting, the time span duration will be exactly 168 hours.(1 week)
- A margin of at least 50% +1 must be reached to pass a vote. a 50-50 vote is considered invalid and must abide by the Syntagma guidelines for a revote.

Adding a quorum was never mentioned in the Curia discusssion that took place on it. We've also had several votes under the Syntagma and never before the most recent one has the idea of a quorum been mentioned. Amendments have actually passed without any mention of a quorum.

So I was wondering when this paragraph was inserted?
.

[Belisarius]

Probably when Profler spent hours going through 100+ civitates and found we dont have 51+ civitates and the curia simply wouldnt function unless it was added, plus we already have/had a quaestor and normal vote going on so they would of failed due to lack of civitates by 10, if 10 people voted "no" it wouldnt fail so it had to be changed and updated to recent times. It was due to a mistake in counts and personally, I dont think it needed a vote to see how many people you need to vote... Also, I think it was added before the vote passed and it doesnt influence how the curia works or anything of the sort. It was always custom for 51 civitates to vote, but most dont care anymore so it was changed.

At least thats what I think happened.

[MareNostrum]

Last post of Profler.. in the Role Call Civitates thread...

Since this is conveniently still pinned, I will use this thread to announce the current 40% of active Civitates voting requirement: 50

This is not an exact figure, since I will likely not have time to complete the review of active civitates this week, but it takes into account all the information available to me.


EDIT: Good news, The review has been completed and the true requirement calculated: 43 Civitates

perhaps that topic should be removed and a new close done replace it. With a proper title, in which profler can announce the amount of votes needed

Amendments have actually passed without any mention of a quorum.

Bill 1 got closed at 43 votes

The quorum itself is from
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14172
==================================================

which reminds me of this..
prior that amendment the situation was..

"... All votes will be ratified by a 25 vote count unless otherwise deemed by the Triumvirate, or until the time
limit expires..."

so that meant that a vote could get closed on its second day. After having reached the minimum votes. The purpose of Amendment VI was to indirectly extend the time a vote remained open. (because getting about 40 / 50 votes takes longer than reaching 25) But ofcourse it would not exceed the maximum time span
Now I am thinking of it.. do we need the quorom after all...

Should we just only use the time span limit.

At the moment:
legislation passes when quorom is reached (perhaps on fifth day).. or when time limit has been reached (one week)

And change that into..
vote simply ends when time limit has been reached ( so practically vote remains open and closes when the week has passed...votes get counted..and then take into account..

A margin of at least 50% +1 must be reached to pass a vote. a 50-50 vote is considered invalid and must abide by the Syntagma guidelines for a revote.


* pro's
-> no hassle anymore for the curator to determine active civitates and the quorom

-> vote simply stays open, so perhaps you will even get more votes than the 40% quorom

Am i correct to say that all votes last one week at the moment?
In that case......... waiting 7 days aint that bureaucratic..

but with the two weeks pre-discussion ..it might seem a bit long..
However I dont think that we will reach the quorom at the first, 2, 3 or even the fourth day of the vote anyway...so i dont see the benefit of the quorim at the moment.

Under the current Curia Vote rules this bill shall:
1/ be open for voting for exactly 7 days (168 hours)
2/ shall require a minimum of 40% of active civitates to vote, as calculated by the Syntagma Curator. Profler has determined this number to be 43
3/ shall pass by a simple majority of votes
4/ and in the event of a tie of votes, shall be considered null and void.

so skip from now on 2...

any thoughts..

Yes it seems, that I am attacking my own proposed amendment. But times have changed...

[the Black Prince]

the 40% was from the original syntagma and amendments, and was something that Sulla skipped over when he wrote out the draft.

i believe it should have been included and was merely forgotten, or it could have been left out, and deliberately added later... only Sulla would know.

[Profler]

The 40% requirement was certainly in the syntagma before the current review process started, prior to that I am not so sure.

[Epistolary Richard]

Probably when Profler spent hours going through 100+ civitates and found we dont have 51+ civitates and the curia simply wouldnt function unless it was added,

Errrr... it doesn't say 51 civitates, it says 50% +1 which means a simple majority. I don't think it was ever custom for 51 civitates to vote.

Last post of Profler.. in the Role Call Civitates thread...


Quote:
Since this is conveniently still pinned, I will use this thread to announce the current 40% of active Civitates voting requirement: 50

This is not an exact figure, since I will likely not have time to complete the review of active civitates this week, but it takes into account all the information available to me.


EDIT: Good news, The review has been completed and the true requirement calculated: 43 Civitates

Thanks, Marenostrum, I was aware of that. But that's how something gets added to the Syntagma, I'm afraid.

Quote:
Amendments have actually passed without any mention of a quorum.

Bill 1 got closed at 43 votes

That's Bill 1, there were six amendment proposals before Bill 1. Amendment Proposal I passed with 38 votes.

The quorum itself is from
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14172

Yes, unfortunately that's the old Syntagma, not the new one. The old one was completely dissolved and replaced by the new one.
.

[Sulla]

It was added prior to this,
06-29-2005, 09:36 AM / Ratification of the new constitution
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=28275

It was an oversight in the first draft because the old constitution did contain this clause.

The votes you refer were vetoed so a quorum was not needed. The only vote that has made it was the imperator name change but I must admit that in haste I did not apply the quorum clause. We have also made a number of new Civitates since then so it is likely that vote actually passed.

I can also tell you that if I was trying to deceive you I wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave such a big fingerprint as,
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26870 :wink:


EDIT:: Also don't forget the old precidents set by the old administration. How many of you remember voting for the Syntagma Pro Curator addition to the Syntagma. But it 'magically' appeared one day too. The feeling was that the Trium power when unanimous was absolute and could change the constitution without notification because the Syntagma didn't specifically state the Trium couldn't do that. Should we apply the principle to the Consuls?

[Omnipotent-Q]

EDIT:: Also don't forget the old precidents set by the old administration. How many of you remember voting for the Syntagma Pro Curator addition to the Syntagma. But it 'magically' appeared one day too. The feeling was that the Trium power when unanimous was absolute and could change the constitution without notification because the Syntagma didn't specifically state the Trium couldn't do that. Should we apply the principle to the Consuls?

IMO, Consul A is essentially the Site Director, and so shouldn't be subject to the Syntagma, but be able to change it if necessary. After all, the Curia is essentially a large RPG.
That said, I think Consul A should be able to amend the Syntagma etc.

[Belisarius]

IMO, Consul A is essentially the Site Director, and so shouldn't be subject to the Syntagma, but be able to change it if necessary. After all, the Curia is essentially a large RPG.
That said, I think Consul A should be able to amend the Syntagma etc.

I agree.

I can also tell you that if I was trying to deceive you I wouldn't be so sloppy as to leave such a big fingerprint as,
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=26870

Now people are going to think you have decieved, just now they know to look harder...

Errrr... it doesn't say 51 civitates, it says 50% +1 which means a simple majority. I don't think it was ever custom for 51 civitates to vote

It was always 50+1 civitates because we always had 51+ civitates, I was speaking of experience, not the actual Syntagma. Unless you read it every week its hard not to forget stuff...

[Epistolary Richard]

It was an oversight in the first draft because the old constitution did contain this clause.

Many thanks, Sulla.
.

[Carousel]

IMO, Consul A is essentially the Site Director, and so shouldn't be subject to the Syntagma, but be able to change it if necessary. After all, the Curia is essentially a large RPG.
That said, I think Consul A should be able to amend the Syntagma etc.

Cant stress how much I agree with this. Well said Omnipotent.

[Profler]

That's already possible under Consular Imperium, though a statement of protocol would make sure that this power was known.

[the Black Prince]

it was to be a part of the consular reforms i proposed as well. i don;t think there is any lack of agreement on this one

[Simetrical]

Errrr... it doesn't say 51 civitates, it says 50% +1 which means a simple majority.

Technically speaking, it could be a supermajority by half a vote. If there were 37 votes, 50% + 1 would be 18.5 + 1 = 19.5. But I don't think this was how the provision was meant to be interpreted.

It was always 50+1 civitates because we always had 51+ civitates, I was speaking of experience, not the actual Syntagma.

There have been a total of five votes in the history of the Curia that have gotten 51 votes. A 51-vote minimum has never been required for anything.

-Simetrical