[Amendment] Simple Majority Act

[Justinian]

Proposer: Justinian
Supporters: Okmin, irishron, Thoragoros

Updated 5/8 7:03 PM

Article III. Legislative Procedure

[...] All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds simple, 50% + 1 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.

Oh, a simple proposal with far-reaching consequences. And yes, I know that this has been proposed several times before, but not since June 2010. I hope that maybe in the time since then we've realized how very little the Curia does and how the oppressive 66% majority requirement hampers productivity and growth. My full reasoning is outlined in this post in Thoragoras's thread:

So really I think if you want to make the Curia more useful, you absolutely HAVE to eliminate the 66% majority and reduce it to a simple majority. This stringent requirement stymies all growth and change; its stated purpose is to weed out proposals that don't have sufficient support but it also weeds out everything that's not practically unanimous. And the only things that are practically unanimous are very, very uncontroversial amendments like giving someone a medal or proposing a new medal or so on. So part of the Curial handicap is our very voting system keeps anything important from being passed unless it's either so blindingly obvious or so unimportant that everyone agrees on it.

It's babysteps to making this place more useful again, and I think this is a step in the right direction. I have seen countless votes that should have passed not pass because they achieved "only" a 60% majority of votes, or a 65% majority, or a 55% majority; yet here in the United States we decide the executive leader of our country by the barest of margins, 52% in 2008, 50.7% in 2004, and 47.9% (whoops!) in 2000. In the last UK general election, the parties in the coalition government -- Conservative and LibDems -- added together only accounted for 59% of the popular vote.

On the last page of the Tabularium, there are 12 concluded votes (not including elections). Of those 12 votes, 6 were medals; 2 were passed bills; and 4 were bills that achieved a majority of yes votes but still failed. Not a single bill failed because the majority of voters opposed it.

So of the 6 legislative attempts, 4 -- which just so happens to be 66% -- should have passed, but didn't because of this archaic restriction.

The most frequently cited argument against this is that bills that don't garner at least two-thirds support are not worth passing, but we are not currently passing ANYTHING worth passing.

Letting more controversial things pass can only help the Curia; Hex can and should always veto anything that somehow passes but is actually negative or would have significant consequences. If it bothers you that the Curia is useless and that we seem capable only of electing people and handing out shiny medals, actually take a step towards changing that. Open up the system.

[Thoragoros]

While I support this bill in theory, I am failry certain that Garb and several other Hex members are strongly behind the 66% super-majority thing, and I think that seeing a bill like this get vetoed would only further harm the Curia.

However, I am willing to take a stand After all :sparta:

Support.

[Justinian]

Though you may be right that's no reason not to show Hex and the rest of the site that we actually care about changing the Curia in a positive way.

I don't think a veto would harm the Curia, I think it would further encourage and empower people to care about the Curia and try to change things.

[irishron]

Support. We have to find some way to get citizens off their duffs.

[Justinian]

Support. We have to find some way to get citizens off their duffs.

I'm glad you agree. I have also proposed a limitation on medal conferrals per month which may prove more controversial than this, and if this bill passes I intend to propose a Decision rehaul in line with my post in Thoragoros's thread.

[Squid]

Oppose, this doesn't change anything except uncertainty to the site where every month the same bill will go back and forth between opposing views depending on which one succeeded last. We already go through the stupidity of the same bill being proposed over and over because the first twenty times it failed. Now you're proposing to make it worse by not only have the same twenty we already get but an additional twenty to go through just so the ones that pass can be repealed, just to the repealing can be repealed etc. etc. Making changes easier to occur does not mean the changes are better. Most of the the curia would change is worthless crap and until that mentality changes nothing else will matter. All we'll see are various incarnation of censor and censor smiley bills as that's the only thing close to substance the curia is interested in outside of medals.

When the curia realizes its not the number of bills it passes that make it useful, or not, but the content of the bills that matters then the curia might be ready to actually become a useful institution of this site. This bill is more concerned with getting more bills passed instead of getting better bills proposed.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Oppose, this doesn't change anything except uncertainty to the site where every month the same bill will go back and forth between opposing views depending on which one succeeded last. We already go through the stupidity of the same bill being proposed over and over because the first twenty times it failed. Now you're proposing to make it worse by not only have the same twenty we already get but an additional twenty to go through just so the ones that pass can be repealed, just to the repealing can be repealed etc. etc. Making changes easier to occur does not mean the changes are better. Most of the the curia would change is worthless crap and until that mentality changes nothing else will matter. All we'll see are various incarnation of censor and censor smiley bills as that's the only thing close to substance the curia is interested in outside of medals.

When the curia realizes its not the number of bills it passes that make it useful, or not, but the content of the bills that matters then the curia might be ready to actually become a useful institution of this site. This bill is more concerned with getting more bills passed instead of getting bills proposed.

Just change my name to "Piggyback"...

(21-17-2) Poll: [FAILED] [Amendment] Repeal Transparency Restraint

(22-15-2) Poll: [FAILED] [Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier, Take II

See those two bills...down in flames they went. Lower that passing percntage and off we go with the badmiton match...back and forth...back and forth...

Watch the shuttle-cock fly....


shuttlecock papercraft


Oppose. If something is brought forward and it carries profound merit, "Pass or Fail", it will get noticed, and the powers to be will kick it around.

Well... that's what it says on the brochure anyway....

[Hesus de bodemloze]

Oppose, this doesn't change anything except uncertainty to the site where every month the same bill will go back and forth between opposing views depending on which one succeeded last. We already go through the stupidity of the same bill being proposed over and over because the first twenty times it failed. Now you're proposing to make it worse by not only have the same twenty we already get but an additional twenty to go through just so the ones that pass can be repealed, just to the repealing can be repealed etc. etc. Making changes easier to occur does not mean the changes are better. Most of the the curia would change is worthless crap and until that mentality changes nothing else will matter. All we'll see are various incarnation of censor and censor smiley bills as that's the only thing close to substance the curia is interested in outside of medals.

When the curia realizes its not the number of bills it passes that make it useful, or not, but the content of the bills that matters then the curia might be ready to actually become a useful institution of this site. This bill is more concerned with getting more bills passed instead of getting better bills proposed.

Got to agree with this, making it easier for bills to pass won't change a thing.

[Thoragoros]

I used to agree with you Squid, and I actually still agree with you in principle.

However, let me ask you this, the Heart Candy Medal. The vast majority of longstanding members that voiced their opinions in the debate were in favor of it, but then it failed a general vote.

How is that fair to the participent members? How is that fair to the members that actually take their free time to participate in what they try to make a fair and fun discussion? It is not. Either the Curia needs to be reformed to ensure that only the participent members have a say in what goes on here, or the process needs to change.

[Squid]

I used to agree with you Squid, and I actually still agree with you in principle.

However, let me ask you this, the Heart Candy Medal. The vast majority of longstanding members that voiced their opinions in the debate were in favor of it, but then it failed a general vote.

Its the will of the electorate, right or wrong, most people in general society don't voice their opinions but they still go to the polls. This is no different.

How is that fair to the participent members? How is that fair to the members that actually take their free time to participate in what they try to make a fair and fun discussion? It is not. Either the Curia needs to be reformed to ensure that only the participent members have a say in what goes on here, or the process needs to change.

Just because I don't participate in one (or more) debate means I'm not a participant? Just because I don't give my say doesn't mean I don't participate? According to your definition my vote in the award bill should count because I didn't stand up and say 'this award is a stupid idea and even if it passed I'd encourage hex to veto it', my vote shouldn't count. Being allowed to choose to participate or not and to choose to vote or not is what the meritocracy of this site allows. If you require people to participate then what little interest there is in the curia will totally disappear.

[Thoragoros]

Its the will of the electorate, right or wrong, most people in general society don't voice their opinions but they still go to the polls. This is no different.

This is no different? Okay...reality check.

This is a gaming site that happens to have a strong debate and social network edge to it, not real life. Just because most voters in real life slack, does not mean we cannot try to create a better system here.

Just because I don't participate in one (or more) debate means I'm not a participant? Just because I don't give my say doesn't mean I don't participate? According to your definition my vote in the award bill should count because I didn't stand up and say 'this award is a stupid idea and even if it passed I'd encourage hex to veto it', my vote shouldn't count. Being allowed to choose to participate or not and to choose to vote or not is what the meritocracy of this site allows. If you require people to participate then what little interest there is in the curia will totally disappear.

Come on now, Squid, you know that's not what I'm saying.

But what I am saying is that most of those that vote, never or very rarely, show up to contribute to the debates. That isn't fair to the citizens that actually want to contribute.

[Augustus Lucifer]

However, let me ask you this, the Heart Candy Medal. The vast majority of longstanding members that voiced their opinions in the debate were in favor of it, but then it failed a general vote.

How is that fair to the participent members? How is that fair to the members that actually take their free time to participate in what they try to make a fair and fun discussion? It is not. Either the Curia needs to be reformed to ensure that only the participent members have a say in what goes on here, or the process needs to change.

I find the fact you're taking the outcome of that proposal so seriously troublesome. To quote Hader:

If you are asking about requirements to be nominated, then those are fairly non-existent. And being discussed. But any requirements implemented will be minor. The point of this medal is not to make sure a select few have it for certain reasons. It is supposed to be open for everyone to a reasonable extent, and allow for some foolish fun for the sake of it, in a place that is all too serious all of the time.

My emphasis. The fact that such serious hubbub is being made over the failure of a medal that was intended to point out the innate hilarity of that seriousness is quite ironic to me. What happened was a medal that was admitted by the proposer to be fluff was tabled, so it merited no discussion because no positions can be taken on fluff("Bah humbug. Oppose."? "Yay lulz. Support."?). Then the vote happened and more people felt it unnecessary than necessary. Had the proposal centered on something defensible and meaningful, rather than just serving as a proof to the author's point(<3), then yeah I could see why people might be frustrated at a lack of reasoned opposition. But come on, I was a supporter and it was lulz through and through.

----

Regarding the proposal, I agree that a 51% majority has a high likelihood of sending mixed messages and generating lots of repeals. The reason the Curia as a body is at all useful is because Hex can a) rely on voters being vetted to some extent, and b) rely on the passage of a bill representing enough of a majority to not be a matter of weekly turnout. If a proposal fails 21-20 there's nothing stopping Hex from implementing it of their own accord, assuming it's nothing to do with the Constitution(if it is, that doesn't really fall under relevant actions the Curia needs to be taking). I've had proposals I made implemented by Hex before they could ever be voted on, such as the Multiplayer section of the forum. Beneficial proposals will be implemented, detrimental ones will be vetoed, contentious ones may or may not be depending on votes and argumentation, and frivolous ones who cares.

[Mega Tortas de Bodemloze]

Looks up....^^^^^{at what Wall of TextMaster (AL)said}Yeah... that plus the ebb and flow of the electorate. Right now many members are dealing with Finals and the end of the school year. So they aren't even around to consider bills and stuff...

[Hader]

I find the fact you're taking the outcome of that proposal so seriously troublesome. To quote Hader:



My emphasis. The fact that such serious hubbub is being made over the failure of a medal that was intended to point out the innate hilarity of that seriousness is quite ironic to me. What happened was a medal that was admitted by the proposer to be fluff was tabled, so it merited no discussion because no positions can be taken on fluff("Bah humbug. Oppose."? "Yay lulz. Support."?). Then the vote happened and more people felt it unnecessary than necessary. Had the proposal centered on something defensible and meaningful, rather than just serving as a proof to the author's point(<3), then yeah I could see why people might be frustrated at a lack of reasoned opposition. But come on, I was a supporter and it was lulz through and through.

Finally, someone who gets me.

AL, you complete me.

[Thoragoros]

The problem is that that single Proposal is a microcosm of the Curia's larger problem. We have a very strone core of participent members who have 'earned their brass' so to speak, and try to contribute, but then we have a larger 'crowd' who never show up and never participate throwing votes.

How is that the entire 'debate' was people saying how to implement it, not where to implement, and then the vote fails hugely? Seriously, the vote isn't even close!

If all these people were against the medal, why didn't anybody say why they were against it? There was no serious opposition in the proposal thread, and yet it fails the vote miserably.

[Augustus Lucifer]

The problem is that that single Proposal is a microcosm of the Curia's larger problem. We have a very strone core of participent members who have 'earned their brass' so to speak, and try to contribute, but then we have a larger 'crowd' who never show up and never participate throwing votes.

How is that the entire 'debate' was people saying how to implement it, not where to implement, and then the vote fails hugely? Seriously, the vote isn't even close!

If all these people were against the medal, why didn't anybody say why they were against it? There was no serious opposition in the proposal thread, and yet it fails the vote miserably.

Serious opposition is only needed for a serious proposal. Even then, voters are free to come to decisions without needing to represent them and be accosted. True it can be frustrating, especially if the overall feeling is a proposal failed due to misunderstandings which could be reconciled or concessions that could be made if the opposition was more vocal. That isn't the case here though, it was plain and simple.

Your core/crowd dichotomy is also incorrect. While it's true that most votes tend to have more silent opposition than stated opposition, you cannot say by transition that the silent opposition are people who don't participate in general. Silent opposition in one thread may be stated support in another, it's not a constant shadow mob. I would almost guarantee that most people in silent opposition(or silent support) of a proposal are those who do participate, but only voice their opinions on contentious matters of import, keeping to themselves when the proposal is clear cut and simply a matter of determination.

[Thoragoros]

Your core/crowd dichotomy is also incorrect. While it's true that most votes tend to have more silent opposition than stated opposition, you cannot say by transition that the silent opposition are people who don't participate in general. Silent opposition in one thread may be stated support in another, it's not a constant shadow mob. I would almost guarantee that most people in silent opposition(or silent support) of a proposal are those who do participate, but only voice their opinions on contentious matters of import, keeping to themselves when the proposal is clear cut and simply a matter of determination.

This is simply not the case, however, and a quick revew of the Prothalamos will show this. We have roughly 10 reliable members and perhaps a handful more that show up on occasion. The rest are 'ghosts.'

[Omnipotent-Q]

I think if you're going to reduce the passing percentage needed, you need to also legislate against continual reversals too regularly. Specifically I think this:

. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

Should be changed to something to the effect of:

If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

There's no can of worms if you're just saying - ok we need a simple majority to pass something - but trying to reverse things in too quick a period of time isn't giving any passed or failed bill a fair chance in seeing what changes in the context of the bill over a given period of time. I think that's a fair compromise of positions. In regards to decisions (suggestions is a better name) on matters outside the Curia - then any passed decision using a simple majority is enough support for something to be actively considered by Hex - it doesn't actually mean a decision will actually be implemented. I think anything that increases the amount of ideas for consideration on whether they're goers is probably not a bad thing.

[Ishan]

The rest are 'ghosts.'

Gotta the ghosts.

[Obi Wan Asterix]

This is simply not the case, however, and a quick revew of the Prothalamos will show this. We have roughly 10 reliable members and perhaps a handful more that show up on occasion. The rest are 'ghosts.'

Perhaps we should find ways to increase participation? I would put your estimate at 15 but I find that still low.

Gotta lub he ghosts.

And the google bots! There has to be like 100,000 of them daily in the Prothalamos.

Not to mention that if recent vote counts were to go by... then we have millions of active members