Amendment: Common Sense Electioneering

[Gaius Baltar]

Split off from the Lobbying bill that has been moved to vote.

Amendment: Common Sense Electioneering
Supporters: Gaius Baltar, ~The Doctor~, Lord Condormanius, Arakorn-eir

This proposal would alter sections of the Constitution, Section II, Article 2- Election Procedure and Section II, Article 3, Legislative Procedure.

Text to be removed is this fashion

Text to be added in this fashion

Full version of merged proposals.

Article 2 - Election Procedure
When the Curia is required to elect an Officer or Rank, or ratify an appoint, the following process shall be applied.

Ratification Votes
When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, is ratified by his branch. After two weeks have elapsed from his appointment the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simple majority of non abstaining votes.

Election Votes
When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Speaker of the House shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against are prohibited except in the original debate thread and via Signatures and Avatars. The thread shall remain open for no longer than one week.
The Council may veto applicants, and should more than six members apply for any position, may shortlist six members to stand for the election. Once applications are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.
Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days.
Where the vacant position is that of Curator, the Speaker of the House shall undertake the Curator's duties in relation to the vote.

Votes of No Confidence
At any time, any Citizen of this site may initiate a vote of "No Confidence" in any Officer, with the exception of Moderation or Technical Staff not on the Council, for neglect of duty or abuse of authority by posting their case within the Curia. Frivolous use of this procedure may result in disciplinary proceedings. In all cases, a vote of "No Confidence" is exempt from veto, however the vote is non binding except in the case of elected officers. The debate and vote on a motion of "No Confidence" shall follow the same procedure as that of a bill as per Article 3 below, but shall be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

Article 3 - Legislative Procedure
Any Citizen may table a bill for discussion by posting a thread in the Prothalamos. This citizen will remain the sole proposer for this thread. Bills can take two forms:

• Amendments - A proposal to alter the text of the Constitution. Amendments can alter or remove existing text and add entirely new text.
• Decisions - A proposal for the creation of an official Decision of the Curia on a topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. The Curia has authority to direct the Officers of TWC in this way on any topic of which the primary say has been delegated from the Officers, who shall take such Curia Decisions under strong advisement. The Speaker of the House shall determine if proposed Decisions fall within the jurisdiction of the Curia.

Each version of the bill requires named support from three Citizens. The final draft of the bill must be debated for at least three days in the Prothalamos before the proposer can request the bill be moved to vote. When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's 3 named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Curia Votes forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. are prohibited except in the original debate thread and via Signatures and Avatars. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

All citizens are honour bound to not view the results of Curia Votes until they have themselves voted, unless necessary for the execution of any other duty to the site.

original proposal 9/23
revised, updated 9/24 - added supporters 9/24
revised 10/17

[the Black Prince]

if my amendment passes, and this one does... you'd create an absurdity

the constitution would read

Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited. The use of signatures and/or avatars to advertise a CVRIAL poll, and/or support for a particular candidate and/or bill is allowed. The use of mass PMs or other disruptive forms of communication is disallowed.

not to mention that you're talking about advertising bills in a section marked Election Procedure, so it would have no relevance to bills anyway

[Shaun]

Is there allowed to be such a contradiction in the Constitution?

[Gaius Baltar]

Im researching the wording and placement of this text into the Constitution, will update...

[GrnEyedDvl]

Obviously this one would cancel the other, the last rule approved applies first, though I think it needs to reworded.

As for the content of the rule, as long as mass PMs and other similar tactics arent allowed I really dont care if signatures and avatars are or are not.

[the Black Prince]

well no, it doesn't. if both get added to the constitution (though admittedly, mine is currently failing) both would be equally valid.

[GrnEyedDvl]

For the sake of argument lets say both passed.

You cant have two opposite but valid clauses. The latter one should take precedence over the former.

Thats why I said you would have to rewrite Gauis Baltars proposal.

[Gaius Baltar]

For the sake of argument lets say both passed.

You cant have two opposite but valid clauses. The latter one should take precedence over the former.

Thats why I said you would have to rewrite Gauis Baltars proposal.

Im taking this into account and hope to have a revised proposal posted in the next 24hrs or so.

[imb39]

Generally speaking, the latest amendment should have precedent over any other.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Generally speaking, the latest amendment should have precedent over any other.

I agree

its one of the reasons i used to point these things out to people, and advise on alternatives... but the curia seems to want me not to do that

I for one want those things pointed out. I think that can help avoid confusion later.

we've had valid but contradictory clauses in the past, the curator would simply have to decide which one to follow, since both are equal...

Then you have the problem of the Curator applying it one way in a certain case, and another or even the same Curator doing the other in a similar case. We cant have this as it opens the door to favoritism/bias. Anytime a proposed clause directly contradicts another, then there should be discussion about it and the outdated clause removed.

As an extreme example:
Say the Constitution said a term of 3 months for Position X.

A later clause said a term of 6 months for Position X.

The latest clause HAS to apply. If you leave them both in then you have a Curator who likes this guy letting him stay the six months and the guy he doesnt like has his term end at 3. Things cant be done that way.

[Lord Condormanius]

I support this. It looks an awful lot like my proposal, except mine focuses on bills rather than elections.

[the Black Prince]

we've had valid but contradictory clauses in the past, the curator would simply have to decide which one to follow, since both are equal...

its one of the reasons i used to point these things out to people, and advise on alternatives... but the curia seems to want me not to do that

[Medicus]

I support this.

It looks like the current proposal is going to fail, anyway.

[the Black Prince]

@GrnEyedDvl
i agree

but there is no policy or convention (or indeed any conventions) relating to a Doctrine of Implied Repeal. Even where countries have such a doctrine, such as the UK, most constitutional experts say it does not apply to constitutional law... and will point to the conflict between the European Communities Act 1973 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1982, as a case in point. The Courts ruled that the MSA could not overturn the ECA, despite being a newer act, unless it explicitly stated it did so. Since this was not the case, the MSA had to be interpreted in line with the ECA.

Anyways... i've always seen my role as Curator as trying to prevent such contradictions even occuring. When i rewrote the constitution back in march, i tried to weed out everything that had got in, and also try for a consistency of terms as well.

Other than that, the Constitution is not a body of laws, where new ones supercede old ones, its a single document. If parts of that document contradict each other, its down to the office charged with interpreting it to rule on what it means - that being the Curator. And yes, its open to potential abuse, and confusion, as different Curators will have different ideas - which is why its important for the Curator, as a matter of form rather than substance, to point out where such contradictions arise, and advise on how to word or implement the bill to erase them.


If GB would like me to show how this bill could be worded to achieve his aims, i'd be happy to write him a draft.

[Arakorn]

Support. Can we also add that you're allowed to say what you voted for??

[Lord Condormanius]

Support. Can we also add that you're allowed to say what you voted for??

I wasn't aware that wasn't allowed.

[the Black Prince]

you're only allowed to state that you have voted. you're not allowed to indicate what you have voted for.

[Lord Condormanius]

What? Really? That is one of the most asinine things I have ever heard. In light of this I would also like to suggest an addition to this bill that states citizens are allowed to say who they voted for.

[GrnEyedDvl]

I would say that what you voted for should not be allowed in the thread, just as here in the states you arent supposed to talk about it with people in line for the polls. Of course if you want to discuss that in PM with a particular person then go ahead, but not publicly.

tbp in the US thats different, the Supreme Court has a pretty good record of new laws canceling old ones.

[Lord Condormanius]

I would say that what you voted for should not be allowed in the thread, just as here in the states you arent supposed to talk about it with people in line for the polls. Of course if you want to discuss that
in PM with a particular person then go ahead, but not publicly.

I have no problem with publish admission of who a person voted for, but I also agree that it should not be in the actual debate or vote thread. Just like the polls (in the US) are not allowed to display campaign materials from any candidate within a certain distance (50 feet I believe) of the entrance to the polling place.

tbp in the US thats different, the Supreme Court has a pretty good record of new laws canceling old ones.

Quite true. We try not to put conflicting laws on the books. It is generally understood that if a piece of legislation that conflicts with a previous piece of legislation, the latter prevails, the former is removed.