TPTTAA Poll - Why would anyone opposed the ConCon results?

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I really don't understand.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

You don't need a reason for political trolling.

[Purple State]

I'm confused as well. People who didn't comment whatsoever in the process, didn't speak up or voice any dissent before now, are voting against a pretty non-controversial step forward for the game, without explaining their votes.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Nobody has commented either. I still want to know why.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Because some people who never were interested nor involved in improving the game just need a reason to scream?

[Marokai Backbeat]

Some of the voters surprise me in ways I shouldn't be surprised. Cinyc. Wormyguy.

I expect reasons from those two and others who decide to vote nay. This Constitution is a consolidated version of what we already have. It incorporates all Amendments into a freshly worded Constitution that is easier to read and allows us to freshen everything up. Nothing really changed here at all! So I'm baffled, absolutely positively completely totally utterly baffled, that people would vote nay on this.

Don't let your petty political disagreements try and derail something even though it's a great thing just because you can and you don't like us. Atlasia can't possibly be that far gone right now, can it?

I sincerely hope people can act like adults about this.

[tmthforu94]

I'm going to say that they just assumed it was bad since it was supported strongly by liberals.

[Purple State]

I'm going to say that they just assumed it was bad since it was supported strongly by liberals.

Perhaps, but Jbrase, Yelnoc and Dibble all voted for it, and Dallasfan was a delegate and voted to approve of the final document.

It is more likely just an anti-PS thing, though I'm not sure what I've done to alienate people like MilesC56 or Cinyc.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Maybe they're opposed to the drastically less awesome wording. Of course that would be a really immature reason to oppose it, though it's the only thing I can come up.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Jedi! A pleasant surprise!

[Purple State]

Jedi! A pleasant surprise!

So far I have been more surprised (and pleased) by some of the names voting (and voting in favor) than by those opposing the draft Constitution. The involvement in the process is always welcome.

[tpfkaw]

I oppose it because it gives far too much power to the federal government.  I would vote against the first version of the same document as well.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I oppose it because it gives far too much power to the federal government.  I would vote against the first version of the same document as well.

You must just oppose the very existence of a Constitution, then, since nothing here is different in terms of authority.

[Associate Justice PiT]

I oppose it because it gives far too much power to the federal government.  I would vote against the first version of the same document as well.

You must just oppose the very existence of a Constitution, then, since nothing here is different in terms of authority.

     While I do sympathize strongly with his view, voting against this document on those grounds is highly pointless. It's not as if defeating it will suddenly eliminate the Constitution & give us Articles of Confederation in its place.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I oppose it because it gives far too much power to the federal government.  I would vote against the first version of the same document as well.

This is nonsense.

[cinyc]

I'm going to say that they just assumed it was bad since it was supported strongly by liberals.

Perhaps, but Jbrase, Yelnoc and Dibble all voted for it, and Dallasfan was a delegate and voted to approve of the final document.

It is more likely just an anti-PS thing, though I'm not sure what I've done to alienate people like MilesC56 or Cinyc.

It had nothing to do with you.  My general view on referenda is to vote no unless persuaded a change is really needed.  I've read the constitution (current and proposed) and never really thought the current version of the Constitution is broken as currently drafted.  And, though at first glance it doesn't appear so, I have neither the time nor energy to make sure nothing significant in the current Constitution was changed advertently or inadvertently.  That's the reason I voted no.

By the way, I'm just a voter.  I hold no political office.  Contrary to the Vice President's statement, I owe nobody an explanation for why I voted the way I did.

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

I'm confused as well. People who didn't comment whatsoever in the process, didn't speak up or voice any dissent before now, are voting against a pretty non-controversial step forward for the game, without explaining their votes.

where was the place to comment in the process? was there a general invitation to the constitutional convention? if so, i didn't receive it. compared to senate and presidential campaigns, this was pretty much beneath the radar.
i voted on the constitution as presented. there were many problems with the constitution as it existed already, and i didn't see any improvement. if there was a marked improvement, no one made that case to me. the change i saw that i did not like was a move to remove citizens from Atlasia within a shorter frame of time. why that would be considered non-controversial i do not know.

should i have voted for it in spite of my reservations? perhaps. but to suggest it is a no-brainer is absurd.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

At least someone finally had the balls to answer honestly.

[cinyc]

At least someone finally had the balls to answer honestly.

I'm not sure what that means.  When prior constitutional amendments have been proposed, I've complained when proponents don't make a case for why a change is needed.  And if proponents don't make that case, I've almost always voted no.  It is up to those who think a change is needed to justify it - not leave it up to us ordinary voters to try to figure out what the problem was and why the proposed fix is better.

I had no idea that there even was a change to remove Atlasian citizens from the rolls sooner.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you don't understand or care about what is on offer, you just shouldn't vote.

So far the opposition has been two people saying they don't like the Constitution as is so they're engaging in the pointless exercise of voting for a nicer version of what already exists, and one person saying he didn't pay any attention and voted nay out of reflex.

I'm glad that most other people have been reasonable, though. This is a good step forward in the goal of consolidation and really, the biggest step, if ratified.

[cinyc]

If you don't understand or care about what is on offer, you just shouldn't vote.

So far the opposition has been two people saying they don't like the Constitution as is so they're engaging in the pointless exercise of voting for a nicer version of what already exists, and one person saying he didn't pay any attention and voted nay out of reflex.

I'm glad that most other people have been reasonable, though. This is a good step forward in the goal of consolidation and really, the biggest step, if ratified.

As usual, you have mischaracterized what I said.  I see no reason to amend the constitution as it is currently drafted for the sake of amending it.  The current text reads just fine.   It is up to the people who propose changes to the constitution to tell us why change is necessary.  Unless they do that, I will not vote for any proposed change to the constitution.

The burden is NOT on ordinary voters to try to figure out why a constitutional change is supposedly necessary.

What is this goal of consolidation?

[The Dowager Mod]

"By the way, I'm just a voter.  I hold no political office.  Contrary to the Vice President's statement, I owe nobody an explanation for why I voted the way I did."

[Marokai Backbeat]

If you don't want to give an explanation, that's your prerogative. I just expected that if you're going to stand in the way of something very important and fairly non-controversial, for you to have a reason to.

If you don't understand or care about what is on offer, you just shouldn't vote.

So far the opposition has been two people saying they don't like the Constitution as is so they're engaging in the pointless exercise of voting for a nicer version of what already exists, and one person saying he didn't pay any attention and voted nay out of reflex.

I'm glad that most other people have been reasonable, though. This is a good step forward in the goal of consolidation and really, the biggest step, if ratified.

As usual, you have mischaracterized what I said.  I see no reason to amend the constitution as it is currently drafted for the sake of amending it.  The current text reads just fine.   It is up to the people who propose changes to the constitution to tell us why change is necessary.  Unless they do that, I will not vote for any proposed change to the constitution.

The burden is NOT on ordinary voters to try to figure out why a constitutional change is supposedly necessary.

What is this goal of consolidation?

If you're going to vote for or against something I do expect you to actually know what the hell something is. Some sort of basic idea. Voting isn't compulsory; you have the choice to pass up the vote if you're uninformed.

I suspect, however, that even if it was thoroughly explained to you, you would vote nay anyway.

Consolidation is a goal of our Administration as an alternative to both doing absolutely nothing to improve the game and instituting or attempting to make radical changes. As part of that goal, PS has tried to work on DoFA reform (though that's sluggish due in part to few people understanding the issue) and we've both worked on consolidating the statute.

The reason for us doing this was because of the fact that our statute and Constitution have been continuously updated and patched over for over 5 years now. Yet we've made no serious effort at cleaning anything up. People are always at a loss at what statute says, as there are often more than a handful of laws on the topic and all either conflict with each other or are so scattered throughout the statute, that it's difficult to tack it all down.

To deal with the statute problem, I wrote two pieces of legislation the Senate dutifully passed: The first was the First Major Wiki Reform Act that repealed or moved 61 pieces of statute from the main page to a newly created "Repealed Statute" page to easily distinguish between what is current law and what is not current law. It also instituted the new policy of wiki'ing things by month and Senate session, instead of just the number of the Senates with no specific date.

The second proposal to this effect was the Omnibus Trade Reorganization & Wiki Consolidation Act which moved 30 pieces of statute to the repealed page and organized all our trade laws into one neat little package. Did you know we had over 30 pieces of trade law scattered throughout the statute? It made determining our trade policies a nightmare.

The Constitution has a similar problem. It's patchwork and old. Pieces of it were repealed or modified years ago and those changes confuse people because you would have to go to the specific Amendment page to find those pages, as the Constitution is rarely updated in a timely manner, and the titles for the Amendments are simple "Amendment No. ___" instead of anything descriptive. For newbies and veterans alike, it makes reading the Constitution difficult and even the Senate has gotten confused at what is actually in force and what isn't in force, both with the Statute and the Constitution.

That's why PS and I proposed, during the Presidential campaign, our rough draft and proposal that we consolidate all Amendments into a new Constitution that roots out all the oudated and repealed parts, so we all know and easily understand what is actually in force. There were no major changes to anything critical. It is just another proposal in our long goal of a consolidated and easier to understand set of game mechanics.

They're small steps we admit, but PS and I recognized before that big changes failed because they had their sights set too high, and in the end, our same crippled statute and constitution remained in place. We took a different approach. Baby steps. By making small and uncontroversial game improvements now, we can improve the game even more later. But even if we didn't, we knew this would be a good thing no matter what.

No secret motives, no evil conspiracies. Just a little polish the game needs after years of rust.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

"By the way, I'm just a voter.  I hold no political office.  Contrary to the Vice President's statement, I owe nobody an explanation for why I voted the way I did."

You and others might not feel like you owe anyone, but this is a political simulation, and if your votes are crucial in defeating the bill, I certainly think you owe the media an explanation. Regardless, we've finally seen a few honest answers, and agree with them or not, they are honest answers.

I'm tempted to lock the thread, but, I'll leave it open for now.

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

No secret motives, no evil conspiracies. Just a little polish the game needs after years of rust.

Well, thanks for a mention.