[Amendment] Bill pass requirement

[Scar Face]

Proposer: Scar Face
Supporters:

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. 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.

My idea behind this is simple, we are suppose to be the most respected and intelligent members of the forum, if a majority are in favor of something, why should it fail to pass? Too often a bill has failed because of a minority, two thirds is simply too large. It stalls progress as it requires an overwhelming majority.

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 require two thirds majority of non abstaining votes in order to pass, it will be conducted in the Curia Main, and not the Prothalamos.

The new text in this section of the bill was simply to clarify that all Vonc's required 2/3'rds support, and would not be effected by my changes to regular bills and decisions. I am keeping the status quo as to VONC's, it is a very serious and difficult question, and due to the difficulty in replacing Curators or other officials, we must be practical.

[Trax]

Keep the constitutional amendments at 2/3 majority and I might support.

[Erich von Manstein]

Keep the constitutional amendments at 2/3 majority and I might support.

Agreed. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be difficult to change on a whim. Curial decisions and VonCs, on the other hand, should be subject to the will of the (simple) majority.

[Scar Face]

Agreed. Constitutional amendments are supposed to be difficult to change on a whim. Curial decisions and VonCs, on the other hand, should be subject to the will of the (simple) majority.

Democracy is all about majority rule. There is a three day discussion for all bills before they go to vote, and a great deal of thought and debate for those that really matter. To gain a 50+1 majority does not mean its 'on a whim'.

The reason I kept VONC at a status quo was honestly, because of all the events going on at the moment I post this. On the matter of principle I support a simple majority being needed to remove an elected official, but for practicality reasons [not to mention the timing of this bill...] means that it may simply not be possible. If only a slight majority want an elected official gone, suddenly we have to go through an entire new election...where they may not even be enough viable candidates! Perhaps a reduction is needed, but not necessarily all the way to a simple majority.

[Simetrical]

I don't particularly support. Two-thirds is a good threshold.

Democracy is all about majority rule.

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose amendments to this Constitution, or, on the application of the legislatures of two thirds of the several states, shall call a convention for proposing amendments, which, in either case, shall be valid to all intents and purposes, as part of this Constitution, when ratified by the legislatures of three fourths of the several states, or by conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other mode of ratification may be proposed by the Congress . . .

[pannonian]

Democracy is all about majority rule. There is a three day discussion for all bills before they go to vote, and a great deal of thought and debate for those that really matter. To gain a 50+1 majority does not mean its 'on a whim'.

TWC isn't a democracy, it's an internet forum whose owner allows a certain degree of control by the members. Democratic principles only go as far as they don't include idiotic or impractical ideas, hence Decisions are referred to Hex, who implement or not as they see fit - Hex being a group of people with plentiful experience of such practical issues.

The old patrician order was a way of ensuring that it would meet an additional, very selective, human scrutiny test, for patricians had to undergo a rigorous examination before they are made so, and without patrician support a Bill cannot be. Now that patricians have been abolished for being impractical in other ways, we'll need other safeguards in place to ensure that out of this world proposals don't get passed willy nilly. The 2/3 majority is as good an obstacle for this purpose as any.

[Scar Face]

I don't particularly support. Two-thirds is a good threshold.

I'm sorry, but showing United States procedure doesn't really go far with me. Nor does, honestly, citing any one nation. Democracies dont always follow the same principles, America uses 2/3rds. Canada on the other hand, uses consensus. The Bill goes through again and again and again, modifying it until the house of commons and the senate agree to it. A bill not passing is extremly rare, and actually results in the Governments resignation.

TWC isn't a democracy, it's an internet forum whose owner allows a certain degree of control by the members. Democratic principles only go as far as they don't include idiotic or impractical ideas, hence Decisions are referred to Hex, who implement or not as they see fit - Hex being a group of people with plentiful experience of such practical issues.

I agree that decisions should be simply advisments, and of course TWC isn't a true Democracy, simply by the fact that the common members cant vote. But we do have Democratic principles, and the Civitate class is suppose to be the Elite. If idiotic or impractical ideas actually come from this class, then the class itself needs a purge. Have you actually seen an entirely idiotic and impractical idea come out of the CVRIA...ever? I haven't. I've seen ideas I disagree with, but thats a different matter entirely.

The old patrician order was a way of ensuring that it would meet an additional, very selective, human scrutiny test, for patricians had to undergo a rigorous examination before they are made so, and without patrician support a Bill cannot be. Now that patricians have been abolished for being impractical in other ways, we'll need other safeguards in place to ensure that out of this world proposals don't get passed willy nilly. The 2/3 majority is as good an obstacle for this purpose as any.

Not really. We dont require safegaurds, as generally speaking Bills are of rather high quality. We should give the Civitate class some responsibility for its own actions, if a majority of the class supports a bad idea, then we must suffer the consequences. Bills can always be reversed. Not to say thats ideal, I'm simply saying that the Curia must be trusted to make the right decisions, and if not? So what? Two thirds is ridiculously high, it needs to be lowered, perhaps not to a simple majority, but lowered nontheless.

With that being said, obviously I am not going to continue pushing for this bill. I'm not HappyHo, afterall. I know when I have lost.

[Professor420]

Democracy is all about majority rule.

Huh?

[drak10687]

Democracies may, in principle, be based on the rule of the majority. However, first, as it has already been pointed out, TWC in not a democracy. More importantly, though pannonian says that "it's an internet forum whose owner allows a certain degree of control by the members", I would say the Curia is even less than that; it's more of an advisory board. Even if decisions or amendments pass, its up to Hex, or just imb39 to whether anything actually changes or gets implemented. Our role is really to advise Ian on whats best for certain parts of the site based on the opinions of those deemed most as most worthy contributer of it... But say that theres a very controversial proposal (thought thats not even necessary), and it only passes with a 50.5% majority of non-abstaining votes... that wouldn't be very convincing for those who actually make the decisions that this proposal would be beneficial for most of the people on the site. Thus we need an overwhelming (say, 2/3s?) majority to show that the general consensus of the body of citizens is really for said proposal.

And second, even if this was a democracy, practically any stable democratic country has a constitution which is very hard to alter.

[pannonian]

Any working state, democracy or not, has a civil service that is maintained and guaranteed through taxes. That is the main difference between an internet forum and a democracy, however much one goes on about democratic principles and citizens' rights. If few members put in their time and expertise to make projects work, the Curia can pass Bills all it likes, but they won't be implemented for practical reasons (lack of skills and manpower).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Against. We do not want legislation to be easy to pass - it will bring a byzantine amount of complexity and change and will generally make the curia more difficult to run.

[Simetrical]

The Government resigning, that is more of what is expected of them then what is law.

Yes, but it has the law behind it in that if they don't, they'll just be explicitly kicked out by Parliament.

Not that, regardless of errors or not, this has anything to do with my point. My point was that Democracies have different principles and don't always follow 2/3'rds majority concerning laws, or various other things for that matter. In my opinion TWC should follow a simple majority system, and if you are going to argue against it, you must actually cite points. Not just blindly show another Democracies system and go "See".

I was responding to your statement that "Democracy is all about majority rule", not making an argument against your main point.

Here's a remark on history. Originally, everything was a simple majority. Then later on, at some point in maybe 2005 or early 2006 if memory serves, the Constitution was split into a Constitution plus Laws, and it took two-thirds to alter the Constitution and a majority to alter Laws. Then I think at the beginning of this year, it was changed back to only a Constitution, with two-thirds being the threshold of change, and Decisions had been added at some point before that. I think.

Anyway, I believe the impetus for switching to two-thirds can be found, essentially, in the Preamble to the Constitution: "any considered mandate from the appropriate legislative body of contributing members will be implemented by the administrators." If only a bare majority support, it's not much of a mandate. Why should we bother to change anything if almost as many oppose as support? This applies, at any rate, to Decisions. If the Curia has no really clear opinion either way, the administration may as well be free to do what it wants. As far as amendments to the Constitution, it would be perhaps less of a concern, since the Curia is free to do what it wants with them, but requiring only a majority makes the Constitution very changeable, perhaps more than would be beneficial.

My opposition is not ironclad, but barring compelling arguments, I would vote against (but also barring compelling arguments, not propose or support a veto).

Can you cite a democracy that follows a simple majority system?

From what Scar Face compelled me to dig up, I think Canada technically does. It avoids changing things like its constitution by convention, I gather, not by actual rules against it. Kind of like how in America we nominally require two-thirds support to change the Constitution, but many people would oppose a change to the Constitution that they would support as law (e.g., gay marriages, where last I heard over two-thirds opposed but under a majority wanted it to be put in the Constitution).

[the Black Prince]

i would support reducing decisions to simple majority.

but the flip side is that while amendments and VoNCs should be 2/3rds, so should ratifications in my opinion, and for the same reason.