|
|
| Do you wish to enact the proposed constitution? (see first post for details) (You must post your vote at the end of this thread to prevent cheating) |
| Enact the Constitution |
|
100% |
[ 4 ] |
| Do not Enact the Constitution |
|
0% |
[ 0 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 4 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Wed Feb 22, 2006 3:42 pm
Ladyfriend Aperium In a two-way vote to say "yes" or "no" it is fairly simple to see what the majority is. 'No' is not the same as 'continue the discussion'. Voting 'no' is voting to scrap the revision, stop discussing it entirely, and move on to an entirely different revision. If this wasn't the case we could end up with revisions that the majority simpley do not want passing stying open for discussion indeffinitely. That will not help us move forward and create a manifesto and constitution if we are to have a limited number of organised discussion happening at any one time. If neither 'yes' or 'no' recieve more than 50% of the vote it shows that this party does not have a majority that wants either, and so the discussion should be extended. Effectivelly the 'discuss it more' option is a 'so far we're undecided' option. I agree with Myslec on this issue. Ladyfriend Aperium 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. In a vote that has three options a 2/3 or 3/4 majority is far less achievable than a 51% majority. It would become too difficult to pass revisions in a time when we're trying to get alot in place. I disagree. We need to make sure that what we pass is truly wanted and approved by everyone. We can't afford division and decreased activity due to a dislike of the laws we passed Ladyfriend Aperium 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. It seems that alot of the discussions we will be having will come down to 'US vs UK'. Perhaps. I still support the 2/3 majority rather than just a 1/2 majority. I suggest that everyone at least take a look at this Wikipedia Article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 5:56 am
Myslec 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. Seperating the options into two seperate votes wouldn't create a larger true majority for single option. The yes option in the first vote would recieve the same percentage as it would the way I suggest. The no option would just get more. Then, during the second vote, all the yes voters from the first round would unbalance things in favour of discussing it more. All that happens is we end up with a more convoluted system with results that seem less capable of representing the voter's desires. Aperium I disagree. We need to make sure that what we pass is truly wanted and approved by everyone. We can't afford division We need to pass revisions that the majority want. We need to stimualte debate within the party and encourage opposition within the party so that all revisions can be discussed from as many viewpoints as possible. We need to be inclusive towards large minorities so that, as a democratic party that will be looking to be re-elected term after term, the electorate can feel reasured that this party can accurtely represent them. Requiring a larger majority would marginalise minorities with views opposed to those held by the majority, and increases the risk of stagnation within the party. Aperium and decreased activity due to a dislike of the laws we passed People never fight for things they want as enthusiastically as they fight against things they don't. Besides, the idea that passing revisions that people don't like will decrease activity, seems missleading. People would be just as ready to leave because they couldn't pass a revision that they thought was neccessary. We could end up with a disallusioned majority and a party that's slowed, or stopped, by a minority of as little as 1/4 of the party. This could be a particular problem at this time when we are trying to get the basics of the guild together quickly so we can bring more members in and discuss issues more fully.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 24, 2006 11:44 am
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 3:04 am
Myslec I'm might be willing to compromise the vote ratio to 3/5. 3/5 would be acceptable. Myslec I agree with what you have said here except with its inability to represent voter's desires. I think it would only be more true of what voters want. Statistically all it does is ensure that a simple majority is required for 'yes' to win the first vote an that 'no' would require the same in the second. If we require 3/5 majority to pass anything it seems entirely pointless to stretch the voting out longer than is neccessary. Simpley requiring a certain size majority to pass, or scrap, revisions, and having results that do not meet those criteria counted as 'undecided, would produce the same results in less time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 4:32 pm
Ladyfriend Myslec I'm might be willing to compromise the vote ratio to 3/5. 3/5 would be acceptable. You have made some very good points. I will accept the 3/5 compromise. (No intended connection to the Three-Fifths Compromise of the 1787 United States Constitutional Convention.) Ladyfriend Myslec I agree with what you have said here except with its inability to represent voter's desires. I think it would only be more true of what voters want. Statistically all it does is ensure that a simple majority is required for 'yes' to win the first vote an that 'no' would require the same in the second. If we require 3/5 majority to pass anything it seems entirely pointless to stretch the voting out longer than is neccessary. Simpley requiring a certain size majority to pass, or scrap, revisions, and having results that do not meet those criteria counted as 'undecided, would produce the same results in less time. What if it took a petition of a certain number(or percentage) of members to get the proposal to start the 30 days of debate followed by the vote, kind of like a referendum? The vote would then only have the options 'yes' or 'no.' If the special majority voted 'no' and the members still wanted to discusses the issue further and have another vote on it, they would only have to redo the petition. My Proposal*: Quote: Any proposed revision to the constitution must be submitted to the whole membership by petition of X members in good standing and then 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 all members in good standing must be given an opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days. During which they must have the option to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must again be submitted to the whole membership by petition of X members in good standing and then be subject to a period of discussion by the whole membership, before it can be enacted. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and two (2) days before the vote is set to take place. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 27, 2006 6:32 pm
[ Message temporarily off-line ]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Feb 28, 2006 2:10 pm
My new ideas about the Constitution 1. Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least 10 percent (10%) of members in good standing. 2. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation at least thirty (30) but not more than ninety (90) days in length and open to all members in good standing. 3. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision. 4. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place. 5. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days. 6. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision. 7. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition. I thought the structure was getting messed up and was too confusing for discussion, so I did this to make things easier while we discuss.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 12:07 pm
Aperium What if it took a petition of a certain number(or percentage) of members to get the proposal to start the 30 days of debate followed by the vote, kind of like a referendum? I'm fairly sure I've suggested this in the past. I don't see any particular problems ith this sort of system. Although we do then need to devise a way of deciding which petition gets priority. Starting with the petition with the highest number (/percentage) of signatures, and going through them in decending order, would be the obvious way. The problem then would be do new petitions with jump straight into the queue, or do older ones take priority because they've been in the queue longer. It might also be a good idea to impose a limit on the length of time over which a petition could be held. Otherwise it may lead a false level of support for a proposal where people who signed it a long time ago have either left the party, or stopped supporting it. Aperium The vote would then only have the options 'yes' or 'no.' If the special majority voted 'no' and the members still wanted to discusses the issue further and have another vote on it, they would only have to redo the petition. It would help to stop discussions that people are not interested in from lasting longer than they should. Myslec but not more than ninety (90) days in length The reason I suggested having a single fixed length of time for debates was to stop this guild from continuing down the route of spinning things out longer than neccessary. We need a to put a stop to discussions not ending when they should becauseof a lack of a deffinite deadline. We also need to get isues resolved quickly. Considering we've spent a little over half the available 30 days to get this far on this issue, a debate length of 90 days seems like an unneccessarly large amount of time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 01, 2006 3:00 pm
Quote: 1. Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least ten percent (10%) of members in good standing.
2. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation at least thirty (30) but not more than ninety (90) days in length and open to all members in good standing.
3. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision.
4. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place.
5. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days.
6. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.
7. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:17 pm
It has been suggested that the duration of discussion be fixed and fairly short, this is my proposed length: 30 days +/- 0. Quote: 1. Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least ten percent (10%) of members in good standing.
2. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation for thirty (30) days in length and open to all members in good standing.
3. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision.
4. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place.
5. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days.
6. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.
7. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:43 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:46 pm
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 5:30 pm
Quote: 1. Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least two members /*Changed to prevent mathematical related confusion, can be amended later*/ of members in good standing.
2. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation for thirty (30) days in length and open to all members in good standing.
3. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held within with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision.
4. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place.
5. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days, beginning within seven (7) days of the end of the deliberation period. /*Changed to prevent an indefinitely delayed vote*/
6. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.
7. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 10, 2006 8:50 pm
Aperium Quote: 1. Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least two /*Changed to prevent mathematical related confusion, can be amended later*/ members in good standing.
2. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation for thirty (30) days in length and open to all members in good standing.
3. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held within with the ability to either confirm or deny the enactment of the revision.
4. All members in good standing must be notified of the proposed revision and the date of the vote at least thirty-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place.
5. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days, beginning within seven (7) days of the end of the deliberation period. /*Changed to prevent an indefinitely delayed vote*/
6. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision.
7. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition. The same thing in paragraph form: Quote: Any proposed revision to the constitution must first be submitted to the whole membership by petition of at least two members in good standing. At the completion of the petition, the proposed revision must be subject to a period of discussion and deliberation for thirty (30) days in length and open to all members in good standing. At the end of the deliberation period a vote must be held within with the ability 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-five (35) days and again, two (2) days before the vote is set to take place. All members in good standing must be given the opportunity to vote on the proposed revision over a period of fifteen (15) days, beginning within seven (7) days of the end of the deliberation period. In order for such a proposed revision to be enacted, at least three-fifths (3/5) of all voting members must vote in favor of enacting the proposed revision. If the proposition is denied enactment, the proposition must restart the above process with the petition.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
