Welcome to Gaia! ::

Thread trimmed.

I agree. Full discussion of all revisions is an absolute neccessity. As such it should not be possible to enact any revision without giving the option of extending the discussion.

Also, there should a a limited time period for voting, and all [active] members should be notified of proposed revisions at the beginning of the discussion period. That way, if they fail to vote within the time period, it can be assumed that they are abstaining.

Any proposed revision to the constitution must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation at least thirty (30) days in length and open to all members in good standing. At the end of the deliberation period, the proposed revision must be subject to a vote with the capacity to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty (30) days and two (2) days before the vote is set to take place. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, three quarters of all legitimatly partcipating members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.


(Revisions are posted in red.)

These changes are good for the most part, but I have problems with the parts in green and violet. I'll start with green:

In a two-way vote to say "yes" or "no" it is fairly simple to see what the majority is. However if there is a three-way vote, "yes," "no," and "let's talk about it some more," it will still be easy to see if the "yes" got more that 50% of the votes, but what if it didn't? The other option are "no" and "let's talk about it some more." does the one with the most votes win? What if people that voted "yes" want to continue discussion now that the vote did not pass? What if some one voted "let's talk about it some more" and the vote got more "no"s than anything else? When ever a third party is added, one of the existing parties is hurt, the same applies here.
What is the difference between "no" and "let's talk about it some more"? Both option prevent the thing from being passed, just in one you also get the option to continue with discussion. Yes, I said option. If the majority of people don't want the discussion to continue, they don't have to talk about the topic and can keep voting the 'continue discussion' option. There is no real need for the "no" option in the vote and it makes interpreting the results more confusing.

My problems with the violet part is more strait forward. I would rather have a two-thirds (2/3) or a three-fourths (3/4) majority to pass an amendment, that way a larger percentage of the membership will like the change, what ever it may be.
Just look at the US. To pass a Constitutional Amendment you need some thing like a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress and ratification by 3/4 of the states.

I propose:

I think there should be a vote between passing it and not passing it. If the vote doesn't pass, then a secondary vote will be held to decide between continuing discussion and stopping discussion.

This way there are still clear cut majorities and all options are still there.