[Amendment] Voting Majority Requirement Bill II

[Каие]

Proposer: ЯoMe ♠ kb8
Supporters: Acco, Soulghast, Caradog, Carl Von Döbeln, Mithrandir, Celsius

I propose a motion to slightly restructure and balance the voting majority required to pass a bill. My proposition includes the provision to lower the voting majority required to pass a bill from 66% down to 60%.

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 shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds 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.

[Desperado †]

Two fat ladies.

Tentative support. I'd rather it if there was no difference between amendments and decisions.

[Acco]

I agree with this amendment in theory, but I must oppose. However, I will support this amendment if you lower the percentage for amendments to 60% as well.

Edit: Now that the amendment has been altered, I support.

[Soulghast]

Unless the threshold is lowered to 60% for both amendments and decisions, I cannot support this. Both amendments and decisions can be of equal importance, there is no reason the passing requirements should be different.

[Каие]

Edited, and all support added.

[Mithrandir]

Support the new version.

[Carl von Döbeln]

i give da support

[Augustus Lucifer]

Oppose. 66% is a good indicator, because it means twice as many people Support as Oppose. If you want it to be a less substantial amount, we're liable to see bills to revert things popping up a lot more. If a bill or amendment can't achieve 66% of the vote, where 2 people think it is good for every 1 that doesn't, it probably needs fine tuning or is premature.

Simple majority works sometimes, but it presents a factional division, where something passes by a small margin so half the voters feel slighted. I realize 60% is not a simple majority, but the initial bill of this nature was proposed in the vein that the proposer felt a bill they offered earlier which got 60% should have passed. If it is lowered to 60%, doubtless someone in the future whose bill gets 51-59% of the vote will propose it be made a simple majority, and god forbid the Curia pass that through.

[Desperado †]

If you want it to be a less substantial amount, we're liable to see bills to revert things popping up a lot more.

Is there a problem with bills being reverted? By lowering the percentage, a few more proposals will pass. Some of these might turn out to be bad ideas, and we'd end up reverting them, but one or two more controversial ideas might pass that turn out to be excellent ideas we'd never of otherwise noticed. It's not like massive harm is done if a bad idea passes which is then later reverted by the Curia or Staff. I'd rather we were a bit more adventurous and creative, rather than sceptical and conservative.

[Каие]

Don't worry AL, the mighty Hex will strike down evil legislation designed to impose tyranny and death upon twc.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Is there a problem with bills being reverted? By lowering the percentage, a few more proposals will pass. Some of these might turn out to be bad ideas, and we'd end up reverting them, but one or two more controversial ideas might pass that turn out to be excellent ideas we'd never of otherwise noticed. It's not like massive harm is done if a bad idea passes which is then later reverted by the Curia or Staff. I'd rather we were a bit more adventurous and creative, rather than sceptical and conservative.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The Curia was plenty active and adventurous when it was necessary that it be, and there was plenty of drama when drama produced results. Doing just for the sake of saying you did might work for hang gliding, but it doesn't really apply to legislation on an internet forum.

Don't worry AL, the mighty Hex will strike down evil legislation designed to impose tyranny and death upon twc.

And here I was afraid that the site would decay into ruin because of something the Curia has the power to institute.

[Каие]

And here I was afraid that the site would decay into ruin because of something the Curia has the power to institute.

[Heinz Guderian]

I SUPPORT THIS. I SUPPORT THIS MAN. I KNOW THIS MAN.

[Celsius]

Supporto

[Bokks]

I completely agree with every point that Augutus Lucifer brought up.

I oppose this on those grounds as he has stated above.

[Aldgarkalaughskel]

I support this proposal.

[Viking Prince]

Oppose.

I see no reason for us to move closer to mob rule. Consensus opinion is good. 66% is a good second best to consensus.

It seems that those who support the change must have some failed votes that fall between the old and the proposed new threshold. Would it not be easier to be a bit more persuasive? This change will open up the flood gates for all of the nearly passed to be resubmitted without substantial reworking of the failed ideas.

[Lord Condormanius]

Oppose. Has it already been a month?

[Squid]

Oppose, how many times does this have to fail before people get the hint. It should be difficult to pass a bill not easy. Just because bills tend to fail by a small amount does not mean we need to make it easier to pass them.

EDIT: Also I think you are being self-serving in proposing this bill, and not doing it in the best interests of the curia, as this seems like your way of trying to get all your other bills (see the current list of proposed bills) to pass that have failed every previous time you've proposed them.

[Каие]

Also I think you are being self-serving in proposing this bill, and not doing it in the best interests of the curia, as this seems like your way of trying to get all your other bills (see the current list of proposed bills) to pass that have failed every previous time you've proposed them.

Then you should pay more attention to curial matters (Hint, hint Curator Election March 1st 2009) before throwing extraordinary accusations around.