[Amendment] Required voting majority bill

[Каие]

Proposer: ЯoMe kb8
Supporters: _Pontifex_, [user]Heinz Guderian[/user], Caradog

I propose a motion to slightly restructure and balance the voting majority required to pass a bill. I believe a distinction is needed between a Constitutional Amendment and a Decision. My proposition includes the provision to lower the voting majority required to pass a Decision from 66% down to 60%. However the Amendment majority requirement will remain at 66%.

Voting Majority Requirement Bill

The following amendments will be made to the Constitution Legislative procedures.

Article III. 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 any topic relevant to the functioning of TWC. Such a Decision is not binding, but the Curator should ensure (to the best of his ability) that the Council promptly either implements the Decision, or gives an official reason for not having implemented all or part of it.

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 Amendments shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds [66%] majority of non abstaining votes in favour whereas Decisions will only require a three-fifths [60%] 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.

[Justinian]

I'm not sure that I understand the purpose of this. Why? Also, why would Decisions require a lower majority than Amendments, when Decisions make a direct change to the site policy? If anything, they should require a higher majority.

I can see this resulting in putting an Amendment in Decision clothes so it would be easier to pass. Not necessarily oppose, I'd just like the rationale behind it explained.

EDIT: Also, "Amendment bill" vs "Decision bill" seems a bit redundant. I'd just leave it "Amendment" vs "Decision".

[Каие]

My reasoning was seeing a great number of decisions/amendments rejected because it got literally one or a few less vote than a 2/3's majority being hampered by 'abstainers' yet it clearly has high majority support amongst the electorate. I can understand not going for a 50% pass as it makes it unstable, but 2/3rds is a little high. Policy making should be a little flexible, a compromise to bring it down to 60% would be advantageous.

My original intention was to lower the limit to 3/5ths for both, but thought people would oppose such a move and it would be seen as too 'radical' a change. [I'm told it's rather conservative around here]. But I guess if it gathers enough support I would change both to 3/5ths instead of 2/3rds.


After all 'radical' or 'dangerous' changes can be vetoed by the Hex, within the limits of reason more flexibility should be pursued to allow some good needed and useful changes I.e. the alternate history sub forum which were otherwise voted down most likely due to apathetic voters. I seriously could not see the harm in such a useful and needed addition.

[Justinian]

The abstaining votes don't count, you calculate it by adding Yes and No and dividing the Yes by the total number of Yes/No votes. Abstaining is literally throwing your vote away. It changes the percentages you see when you look at the poll, but not the one that counts:

Section II, Article III:

All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I think what he means is, if abstainers had voted yes, even if there was only one abstainer, the vote could pass.

[Каие]

I have taken that into account in my argument, for example;

the alternate history - 30 yes, 20 no. 60%.
cdec archives - 32 yes, 22 no 59%.

I feel if something is really unpopular or really popular it passes or fails straight up, but most things tend to be popular amongst the greater majority yet don't pass.

[GrnEyedDvl]

Its supposed to be harder to get an Amendment through, because once its in its pretty much permanent.

[Каие]

That's my reckoning by separating decisions from amendments in criteria for passage.

[Squid]

Oppose. Just because some votes you wanted to pass didn't is no reason to change the system. Two thirds for both is fine.

[Augustus Lucifer]

66% is easier because if No vote x2 = Yes vote +1, it fails. If not, it passes.

[Каие]

What's the harm in putting it down to allow for more flexibility in bill passing? In addition what's wrong in separating and making a distinction between the two different types of bills? Where amendments are normally permanent when made, decisions are not, thus it should be a bit easier to pass a decision.

[Hotspur]

To protect against the tyranny of the majority. It should be difficult to get proposals passed. Discussion, negotiation, compromise and consensus are the hallmarks of any legislative body, even a pseudo one like this.

Oppose.

[Каие]

To protect against the tyranny of the majority. It should be difficult to get proposals passed. Discussion, negotiation, compromise and consensus are the hallmarks of any legislative body, even a pseudo one like this.

That;s why we have Hex veto.

[Justinian]

The only reason Amendments are semi-permanent is that for them to pass they have to have a pretty clear majority. Amendments can always be repealed.

[Squid]

Using that logic, it should be 50% + 1 to adopt any change because if it is inappropriate hex will step in.

[Каие]

Ideally a simple yes majority vote would be the fairest, simplest and most logical, but there is an obvious aura of 'people phobia' around here. People are evil.

[Каие]

Holy , epic fail. No supporters.

[Soulghast]

I would support this, if decisions and amendments required the same voting percentage to pass.

[Каие]

The same percentage? You mean 60% for both?

[Soulghast]

Yes.