IDS2: IDS Constitutional Amendment Policy (DEBATING)

[Hash]

IDS Constitutional Amendment Policy

1. All amendments to the IDS Constitution shall require approval in a public vote.
2. Each amendment will be voted on by registered voters within the IDS for one week.
3. Passage of amendments shall require at least one more than 50% of the voters supporting it to pass.
4. Alterations to the amendment process shall require one more than a 2/3 majority of the voters to pass.
5. The Emperor of the IDS or a designee of the Emperor shall notify all IDS citizens of the amendment vote upon or before its commencement.
6. The Emperor of the IDS or a designee of the Emperor shall to notify all IDS citizens about any Regional Elections upon or before their commencement.
7. Neglect of either of the two clauses previous shall be grounds for impeachment of the responsible official.

[Dereich]

Earlier in the year, this was a petition which picked up a lot of steam but went nowhere because nobody submitted it to the queue at the time. I've decided to correct that. I saw no problems with it myself, as it just codifies what I've already made it my practice to do.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     So you're cutting the Legislature out of the process?

[Enderman]

Maybe he's just letting it coincide or have the people confirm it after the passage?

[Dereich]

As of now, the amendment process is this:

In the Imperial Dominion of the South, all Amendments are introduced as legislation pursuant to Article III, Clause 1 of the IDS Constitution. Upon passing a vote by the Imperial Legislature, the Amendment is then voted on in a referendum of all citizens of the region and must gain 2/3rds support of the voters in that referendum to pass the Amendment into law.

This would be added to that, in most parts not replacing it. It does open up a question though of whether an amendment should get 2/3rds of the votes or just a majority though.

[Associate Justice PiT]

      I would suggest writing amendments to be direct alterations and additions to the text of the Constitution, since they will be implemented as such. Doing it in this fashion makes it difficult on the person who will be updating the Wiki.

     Anyway, I think that amending the Constitution should be difficult, considering its position as the bedrock on which our government is built. Allowing amendment with a simple majority of both the Legislature and the public voting makes it far too susceptible to changing mercurially with the political flavor of the month.

[Adam Griffin]

Boo! Hiss!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Personally, I'd prefer that constitutional amendments are passed with a 2/3 majority of the legislature and a majority of the voters, but perhaps that makes the amendment process too easy...

[Dereich]

I agree with Small L, god knows that the constitution has so many amendments already that it shouldn't be easy to add more to it. (irony)

I'll accept Small L's amendment as friendly.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Anything else?

[Enderman]

So which one are we voting for? I personally like Small L's idea. We are a Constitutional Imperial Republic, not a Mob-rule, 50% + 1 dictatorship. So 2/3 is awesome. Also, everyone's opinion needs to be in there. Horray for Small L for saving the bill's day!

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

The amendment is adopted.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

Are we ready to invoke cloture?

[Velasco]

Anyway, I think that amending the Constitution should be difficult, considering its position as the bedrock on which our government is built. Allowing amendment with a simple majority of both the Legislature and the public voting makes it far too susceptible to changing mercurially with the political flavor of the month.

If you make Constitutional amendments extremely difficult, the bedrock on which our government is built likely will never be reformed. Besides, it goes against the dynamism of the game and I don't need to remember that everybody is complaining because of the lack of activity and interest towards Atlasia and the regions in particular.

A 2/3 majority to pass amendments via referendum is excessive for me. I don't recall examples of Constitutional referenda requiring so high percentage of the voters. Some countries require a 50% turnout of the census roll in order to pass initiatives. If we are going to vote this, I say in advance that I'll oppose.

[Velasco]

The 50% turnout requirement is interesting. Why don't you offer it as an amendment replacing the supermajority?

Why not?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Enderman]

bumpity bump

[Dereich]

Its an interesting requirement Velasco, but I'm not sure if amendments EVER get that much turnout. I don't think it should be impossible to amend the constitution.

[Enderman]

Its an interesting requirement Velasco, but I'm not sure if amendments EVER get that much turnout. I don't think it should be impossible to amend the constitution.

Yeah. I really doubt that it would take 2/3rds of a majority to change something. People must have to really hate it if its that much... I approve of it to be raised to 50-60% as a compromise of 2/3rds and 50/50.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     The Northeast used to require 50% of all voters to vote on amendments and the result was an unmitigated disaster.

     As for this talk of compromise, I would point out that a 2/3rds majority has served the region well for years. As I said earlier, the Constitution should not be changed easily. Opening the floodgates for all sorts of controversial changes can only bring ruination to the proud traditions that form the Imperial Dominion of the South.

[Velasco]

The Northeast used to require 50% of all voters to vote on amendments and the result was an unmitigated disaster.

Why? I'm not knowledgeable on the North East regional issues.

I think it should be a balance between tradition and change. Maybe we shouldn't make "controversial changes" so easy -and I think the turnout requirement might be enough to prevent this- but, on the other hand, an excessive attachment to "traditions" always drive to stagnation. Several people stated repeatedly that the South's regional constitution must be fixed. A supermajority may turn some necessary improvements very hard to achieve. Institutions never last forever, although they are built in the illusion that they will be unchanging and eternal.

[Associate Justice PiT]

The Northeast used to require 50% of all voters to vote on amendments and the result was an unmitigated disaster.

Why? I'm not knowledgeable on the North East regional issues.

I think it should be a balance between tradition and change. Maybe we shouldn't make "controversial changes" so easy -and I think the turnout requirement might be enough to prevent this- but, on the other hand, an excessive attachment to "traditions" always drive to stagnation. Several people stated repeatedly that the South's regional constitution must be fixed. A supermajority may turn some necessary improvements very hard to achieve. Institutions never last forever, although they are built in the illusion that they will be unchanging and eternal.

     Because they ended up in a place where they just couldn't muster 50% turnout for a regional election. I don't know how likely it is that we would suffer that problem, but any chance of it happening makes me hesitate, considering it would effectively lock us out of amending the Constitution for an indeterminate length of time. I would also point out that such a system encourages the nay voters to boycott the amendment vote, as a boycott would essentially up the requirement to 50% of all registered citizens in favor. I know that I said that the Constitution should be difficult to amend, but that seems like an unreasonable standard to me. If we schedule amendments to be voted on at regional elections where turnout is higher, then it would be much more workable.

     I agree that such a balance is important, but I haven't seen the supermajority as being much of a problem with that. I'll admit that we've had important amendments that took several tries to pass, such as the creation of the Legislature. With that said, that may be a good thing in certain contexts. Considering the differences between the initial draft I wrote up and the final version that was passed, I would say that it benefitted from the extra time to deliberate over the matter.

     Ultimately, I feel like this is a solution in search of a problem. Since the regional Constitution needs to be fixed (I don't know what you are referring to exactly, though I can certainly find areas that could use improvement), how about we give the fix a chance to pass first and then decide whether the supermajority is too hard to work with?

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

I would point out that if this was based off the petition I started, the intent was to discourage the reduction of standards from their present level and if anything to increase them so as to prevent a hijacking of the region Rimjob style. The petition recommended no less than 50% for amendments, but preferred that 2/3rds be required.

Likewise it said no less than then 2/3rds to amend the amendment procedure, but preferred that 3/4ths be required.

The OP appears to contain the lowest choice in both.

[Velasco]

     Because they ended up in a place where they just couldn't muster 50% turnout for a regional election. I don't know how likely it is that we would suffer that problem, but any chance of it happening makes me hesitate, considering it would effectively lock us out of amending the Constitution for an indeterminate length of time. I would also point out that such a system encourages the nay voters to boycott the amendment vote, as a boycott would essentially up the requirement to 50% of all registered citizens in favor. I know that I said that the Constitution should be difficult to amend, but that seems like an unreasonable standard to me. If we schedule amendments to be voted on at regional elections where turnout is higher, then it would be much more workable.

Dereich and you made a fair point on the 50% turnout. It's reasonable scheduling amendments in coincidence with regional elections. Furthermore, it would be desirable in order to muster 50% turnout and not bothering voters beyond the reasonable thing

I must insist in my opposition to the supermajority. On the one hand, I think it's not so bad some dose of controversy in order to keep the game alive. BK got bored, Hash left us because he lost interest, I don't know if Adam is considering a return to regional politics, I'm not going to be around at least for a while. For me, it's not a question of losing elections or a particular voting at the Legislature. I'd get bored pretty soon with the lack of debate and controversy. On the other hand, I don't understand your fears on a Rimjob scenario, given how conservative-leaning is this region and the unlikelihood of sudden changes of direction here.

Only the initial text or the 50% turnout requirement -and coincidence of referendums with regional elections if you want to- are acceptable for me. Stagnation and do-nothing policies are the worst scenario possible.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I agree that controversy is good, for the sake of spurring discussion. I must also insist on my support of the supermajority. I think I've already made my position clear on the matter.

      As for the fears, a threshold of Legislature + 50% of the public makes it possible to pass partisan amendments in bitterly contested scenarios. Considering there was one point when Labor had close to parity in this region, having such lax ratification standards would have left us prone to whatever action at that point in time. One bad month of bad turnout for the Federalists and you could have passed any amendment you wanted. The same would apply in reverse, naturally.

[Enderman]

Could we vote on it like we did the flag with PR-SVT?