[Amendment] Absolute Majority Amendment

[Romanos IV]

Proposer: Romanos IV
Supporters: Major Darling, irishron, King Sama, Future Filmmaker, Belisarius, Okmin, Bolkonsky, ★Bandiera Rossa☭, Lysimachus

Article III. Legislative Procedure

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

You all know the simple majority proposals that have passed by the Curia over time; none was approved. It is clear that a simple majority decision making is not desired by the Curia. However, there are many citizens who would agree that a 2/3 majority is too much and there's no need to have such a supermajority required for the simplest thing going on.

This is why I propose, as a form of compromise, an absolute majority amendment. Below is a list of bills in the previous year (May 2010-May 2011) which would have passed under both proposals:

1) [FAILED] [Amendment] Repeal Transparency Restraint: 21/40 = would have passed

2) [FAILED] [Amendment] Citizenship Application disqualifier, Take II: 22/39 = would have passed

3) [FAILED] [Amendment] - Heart Candy Medal of Sugar and Spice and all that is Nice: 25/45 = would have passed

4) [FAILED] [Amendment] Section II, Article II. Election Procedure: 25/40 = would have passed

5) [FAILED] [Amendment]Section V - Additional Provisions, Article II. Community Awards, Large Awards: 15/29 = would have passed

6) [FAILED] [Amendment]Further Transparency Bill: 19/35 = would have passed

7) [FAILED] [Amendment] Clarifying Vacancy Procedure in regards to the CdeC: 18/32 = would have passed

8) [FAILED] [Amendment] Curator-CdeC amendment: 31/60 = would have passed

9) [FAILED] [Amendment]New Medium Award: 34/60 = would have passed

10) [FAILED] [Amendment] Hexagon Medal Bill: 26/46 = would have passed

11) [FAILED] [Decision] Change the default skin to Total War Center: 32/59 = would have passed

12) [FAILED] [Amendment] Standardisation of time periods in the Constitution: 25/48 = would have passed

13) [FAILED] [Amendment] Living Apotheosis: 25/48 = would have passed

14) [FAILED] [Amendment]Change to Content Senior Staff Requirements: 32/60 = would have passed

And here is the list of those that would have passed under the proposed Simple Majority Act, but not under absolute majority:

1) [FAILED] [Amendment] New Award: Rainbow Candy Heart Medal of Voluptuous Sweetnes: 21-20-2

2) [FAILED] [Decision] Member User Title Customisation : 23-20-7

3) [FAILED] [Amendment] CdeC Interns: 23-20-3

4) [FAILED] [Amendment] Section III Article IV The Curator: 26-23-5

5) [FAILED] [Amendment] Change in requirements for citizen: 29-28-2

6) [FAILED] [Decision] Economy and Finance Forum: 25-20-8

7) [FAILED] [Amendment] Voting majority change and clarification: 26-14-13

8) [FAILED] [Decision] ToS Change - Off-Topic and Disruptive Posting: 25-24-1

9) [FAILED] [Decision] Change the Censor From An Irritating Smilie to Asterisks: 35-32-3


To sum it up, in the previous year, 23 proposals were voted down under the current rules, while having a majority (simple or overall) in favour.
Of those:
14 would have passed under either method (absolute and simple majorities).
9 would have passed only under simple majority. My personal opinion is that they were too close to be safe of repeal attempts, either because they passed with a very slim majority or because the high number of abstaining votes (taking also into account the difference they could make in a potential repeal vote).

[Jom]

Opposed, because of my reasoning stated the last time this was tried. I also object to your faulty method of justification of simply listing amendments that would have passed if absolute majority were in effect, because if those amendments were as good as you're making out (otherwise, why list them?) then they would have passed easily anyway. I don't understand your reasoning for saying "These would have passed under an absolute majority" when it's clear that the Curia was lukewarm at best in their desire to see those proposals put into place.

[Romanos IV]

Opposed, because of my reasoning stated the last time this was tried. I also object to your faulty method of justification of simply listing amendments that would have passed if absolute majority were in effect, because if those amendments were as good as you're making out (otherwise, why list them?) then they would have passed easily anyway. I don't understand your reasoning for saying "These would have passed under an absolute majority" when it's clear that the Curia was lukewarm at best in their desire to see those proposals put into place.

I clearly stated why I listed them, without commenting on them.

Also, if something obtains an absolute majority but doesn't necesserily meet a 2/3 supermajority doesn't means it's not good enough. Every national legislature in the world needs a simple or, at most, an absolute majority to pass; Harsher supermajorities are reserved for constitutional amendments. But I don't think we can equalize laws with decisions here and consitutional amendments with amendments here. They clearly don't have the same force.


However, if there is a wider support for requiring different majorities for decisions and amendments, I have no problem with it.

I would support lowering it from 2/3rd to 3/5ths, but not simple majority.

I used to have the same idea but, as another member said, with the current number of citizens who take part in votes, that would hardly make any difference, save for a 3-4 votes difference.

[Squid]

Opposed, see my reasoning in the most recent attempt at this by Justinian.

Also, if something obtains an absolute majority but doesn't necesserily meet a 2/3 supermajority doesn't means it's not good enough. Every national legislature in the world needs a simple or, at most, an absolute majority to pass; Harsher supermajorities are reserved for constitutional amendments. But I don't think we can equalize laws with decisions here and consitutional amendments with amendments here. They clearly don't have the same force.

Except in an actual legislature you do not have the changes in voting membership that occurs within the curia at all time, you also do not have the expectation to vote, nor do you have the likelihood that the next month it will be reversed because the above two things change in the curia.

[Romanos IV]

@ all 3/5 proponents: I used to support this as well, but as has been pointed out, in Curia votes standards, it wouldn't make any significant difference; only a 3-4 threshold change.

@ different majorities proponents: that may be a good idea. We might as well have two concurrent proposals and, in the really unlikely event that both pass, the one with the most votes for, takes effect.


@Squid & Genius of the Restoration

Opposed, see my reasoning in the most recent attempt at this by Justinian.



Except in an actual legislature you do not have the changes in voting membership that occurs within the curia at all time, you also do not have the expectation to vote, nor do you have the likelihood that the next month it will be reversed because the above two things change in the curia.

But that's not to say the difference is that big between the electorate in a short to mid time span. Also, I don't get why having a slightly different spectrum of opinions automatically brings a repeal vote. Citizens have been awarded the rank thanks to specific contributions and qualifications; and for them to be so important and significant that the CdeC has approved them, that means they don't behave like little kids that change their minds the whole time. And that brings me to another point which is that, given the relative maturity of citizens, and especially those who do come back again and again at the Curia, if a bill is to be repealed, there will be good reason. How many times have you seen unreasoned repeal proposals here, anyway?

King Sama also raises very good points.

Except we aren't a legislature since in a real legislature a party with a majority (or leader of a coalition in a minority) control power for long periods of time meaning that bills will not be repealed every month.

Membership of the Curia hardly changes significantly from month to month (or even from semester to semester); 80% of the citizens who are active in the Curia are the same in an one-year time. And if bills are passed and repealed with such easiness, even if that figure is slightly lower, as proponents of this view imply, then the Curia membership has flaws no majority threshold can pass. But I don't think we have that, anyway.

Take a look at the amendment history, specifically the time where various options were being pursued, the constant change between options is what we'd have to look forward to. Also many contentious bills have been reverted the next month, even with the super majority.

I searched the Tabularium thoroughly and the last repeal amendment was proposed (but failed to pass) in April. There was strong support from most elements of the Curia (including you and me) and you can hardly say it was an unreasoned bill.

The only other repeal proposal I found was the December 2008 Repeal the CdeC Transparency Act and it was soundly defeated (18 for, 26 against, 4 abstain) and some more from 2006. Please enlighten me if you have more examples at hand.

Opposed as always, and your list of bills is a good reason why this shouldnt be changed. 90% of those were bad ideas to begin with.

That's subjective. And hex may veto any bill it likes, if any of them was that bad.

While I supported this in past, I am going to Strongly Oppose. this time around.

We have just recently passed quite a few decent ammendments/bills. We passed the Modding Vault bill, the CA Interview 'bill,' and we also passed the initiative to change User Titles.

Don't judge the Curia's efficency simply by counting passed bills, there is much more to the Curia then simply passing bills. Our real purpose here is to act as a think tank/suggestion box composed of the site's most contributive members, and recently we have more than fulfilled that role.

So, Curia passed some good bills. Does that mean that know we can wait another 2-2 and a half years before it passes anything else of importance? Yes, Curia has been fulfilling its role the past month, but nothing much beyond that. And while we're at it, lowering the difficulty for passing bills means more proposals will be put forward, since citizens who have their share of ideas they'd like to propose won't say 'It's too difficult to pass anyway, plus the Curia is mostly conservative as well'. With this bill, both these assumptions that have been made again and again by the Curia are negated and innovation in the curia will be further enhanced. Also, as I said before, I'm not listing the bills because I think that the more of them they pass the better, but because I think a)the majority of the curia wants it, the curia wants (or logically should want) it, b)showing numbers helps everyone get the idea of how it would be.

Except we aren't a legislature since in a real legislature a party with a majority (or leader of a coalition in a minority) control power for long periods of time meaning that bills will not be repealed every month.

Membership of the Curia hardly changes significantly from month to month (or even from semester to semester); 80% of the citizens who are active in the Curia are the same in an one-year time. And if bills are passed and repealed with such easiness, even if that figure is slightly lower, as proponents of this view imply, then the Curia membership has flaws no majority threshold can pass. But I don't think we have that, anyway.

Take a look at the amendment history, specifically the time where various options were being pursued, the constant change between options is what we'd have to look forward to. Also many contentious bills have been reverted the next month, even with the super majority.

I searched the Tabularium thoroughly and the last repeal amendment was proposed (but failed to pass) in April. There was strong support from most elements of the Curia (including you and me) and you can hardly say it was an unreasoned bill.

The only repeal proposal I found was the December 2008 Repeal the CdeC Transparency Act and it was soundly defeated (18 for, 26 against, 4 abstain). Please enlighten me if you have more examples at hand.

@all who have problem with the list: it is a numerical example and your personal opinions on any of them don't matter here and you had the chance to demonstrate your support or lack of it when it was their time. I'm sure there have been bills that have passed under the current system that you didn't like and bills that didn't pass that you supported. Moreover, Thoragoros, your last three, in case you didn't notice, would pass under simple majority but not under absolute (aka this proposal) majority.

[Thoragoros]

So, Curia passed some good bills.

Right...and this admission completely shatters the premise of this proposal which is that the Curia doesn't do anything.

Does that mean that know we can wait another 2-2 and a half years before it passes anything else of importance? Yes, Curia has been fulfilling its role the past month, but nothing much beyond that.

While this maybe a cliche saying by now, but "You are entitled to your own opinion, not your own facts."

It had no been 2 and a half years since the last passage of something, but rather just a matter of several months, and even then we are only talking ammendments. The Curia still was debating, giving out awards, and throwing ideas around.

Remember, this is a game site, not a real legislature and quite often there simply aren't any 'issues' that require bills/ammendments on a weekly/monthly basis. Our purpose is really to give Hex ideas, because if there is something that really needs doing, the Hex will handle before the Curia even notices it.

Sometimes, frankly, there just aren't any targets for us to legislate at.

[Squid]

I searched the Tabularium thoroughly and the last repeal amendment was proposed (but failed to pass) in April. There was strong support from most elements of the Curia (including you and me) and you can hardly say it was an unreasoned bill.

It wasn't repealed amendments I was talking about. Awhile back there were three bills about censor smilies running simultaneously, all of them passed with a simple majority but none of them passed with 66%. This clearly shows that one bill with a simple majority will be repealed or changed the next month since there are examples where multiple similar things would all have passed using a simple majority.

[T.C.]

Oppose, if anything was that good in the first place it would pass by two thirds. This just encourages yo-yo behaviour; without a sizeable majority anything that passes is likely to be reversed in a matter of weeks/months.

[MasterBigAb]

Oppose like last time as well.

[Legio]

All good points, I'm afraid. Oppose.

[Romanos IV]

Ah well, I might as well abandon this if this goes on; too bad.

[M D]

Support, I feel there are some serious issues with super majorities..

Maybe make amendments 2/3rds and decisions 50+1

[Jom]

Support, I feel there are some serious issues with super majorities..

Maybe make amendments 2/3rds and decisions 50+1

Could you perhaps list some of the issues?

[Omnipotent-Q]

Support, I feel there are some serious issues with super majorities..

Maybe make amendments 2/3rds and decisions 50+1

I've always said this case of affairs in my opinion makes the most sense.

Decision wise - there's no guarantee it will get implemented if passed. However no one can tell me a decision failing by a few votes because of a 2/3rd majority makes the idea unworthy of a proper consideration. If 20+ people turned up in Q&A to rant about a good idea someone has, you can't tell me that it wouldn't be considered more carefully. Too often in the history of the Curia good decision ideas have been canned out of the flawed viewpoint and excuse that a few votes off a 2/3rds majority means something should not be considered at all. Use all the comparison's with systems of government or examples of ancient legislative systems used by beardy Greeks and Romans all you like - It just comes across as barmy to me on an internet forum and the whole 2/3rds on decisions puts off a lot of people sharing their ideas.

I do however feel that 2/3rds majority for amendments is a must have. I also have always thought it was a mistake removing the un-open nature of Curia Votes - you should be able to see how people have voted if only for better administrative scrutiny of votes by Curial Officers.

[Admiral Piett]

I've always said this case of affairs in my opinion makes the most sense.

Decision wise - there's no guarantee it will get implemented if passed. However no one can tell me a decision failing by a few votes because of a 2/3rd majority makes the idea unworthy of a proper consideration. If 20+ people turned up in Q&A to rant about a good idea someone has, you can't tell me that it wouldn't be considered more carefully. Too often in the history of the Curia good decision ideas have been canned out of the flawed viewpoint and excuse that a few votes off a 2/3rds majority means something should not be considered at all. Use all the comparison's with systems of government or examples of ancient legislative systems used by beardy Greeks and Romans all you like - It just comes across as barmy to me on an internet forum and the whole 2/3rds on decisions puts off a lot of people sharing their ideas.

I do however feel that 2/3rds majority for amendments is a must have. I also have always thought it was a mistake removing the un-open nature of Curia Votes - you should be able to see how people have voted if only for better administrative scrutiny of votes by Curial Officers.

This would work unquestionably better. The current rule does nothing but make it harder for citizens to contribute for no good reason.

[M D]

The Heart Candy Medal

[Jom]

I see.

[irishron]

Support.

Issues? Justinian's last attempt, Omni's last attempt, Heart Candy.

['Gunny]

I would support lowering it from 2/3rd to 3/5ths, but not simple majority.

[King Sama]

I support, although the 3/5 amendment that Gunny proposed may be better to relieve some of the fears of simple majority.

However, why should a no vote be twice as powerful as a yes vote? If more people support one action that another, we should go with the supported option. Especially as Romanus points out, if a national legislature can pass laws with merely a majority, surely making a medal or changing user titles on an internet forum shouldn't have harsher requirements.

Oppose, if anything was that good in the first place it would pass by two thirds. This just encourages yo-yo behaviour; without a sizeable majority anything that passes is likely to be reversed in a matter of weeks/months.

Come on. People aren't that indecisive... at least in my experiences.

Opposed, because of my reasoning stated the last time this was tried. I also object to your faulty method of justification of simply listing amendments that would have passed if absolute majority were in effect, because if those amendments were as good as you're making out (otherwise, why list them?) then they would have passed easily anyway. I don't understand your reasoning for saying "These would have passed under an absolute majority" when it's clear that the Curia was lukewarm at best in their desire to see those proposals put into place.

Lukewarm support is still closer to full support than full dismissal.

Except in an actual legislature you do not have the changes in voting membership that occurs within the curia at all time, you also do not have the expectation to vote, nor do you have the likelihood that the next month it will be reversed because the above two things change in the curia.

Fair point, but I'd say the magnitude of the differences in importance outweigh that of the differences in stability, and so its still valid to justify a simple majority by comparing it to a legislature.