FINAL RATIFICATION VOTE PART 2 - AMENDMENTS

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I vote yes on Amendments 1, 2, 3, and 5.
I'll hold off on Amendment 4, because I'm not clear about what Regions plans D and E are.

I vote yes for preferential voting.

Why are Democrats voting no on preferential voting?  It would pretty much guarantee that Dems don't lose any elections due to Progressive votes.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

By vote on the Regions amendment is:
C, D, B, A

(I have already voted in the other amendments)

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Yes on 1st, 2nd, 5th.

No to 3rd.

Will have to think about 4th, not sure I get all the alternatives there.

Gustaf,

You didn't vote on the Preferential Voting amendment....which is interesting considering you started the original PV thread.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

On the Preferential Voting amendment, I count:

9 Yeas
8 Nays
1 Abstention
3 Who voted on other amendments but didn't mention this...maybe the are deliberate abstentions, maybe just an oversight (ShapeShifter, Reaganfan, Emsworth)

Looks like it will go down to the wire!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

3 Who voted on other amendments but didn't mention this...maybe the are deliberate abstentions, maybe just an oversight (ShapeShifter, Reaganfan, Emsworth)

Just an oversight from me.

In that case, what is your vote?

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I guess I missed a yea vote at some point in my earlier count.  Anyway....hurray!

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, that seems rather silly. If that is indeed the case, any voting done on the amendment ought to be declared null and void on that basis, and perhaps voted on again AFTER a written document is produced.

Exactly my point.

Supersoulty,

Why didn't you ask someone to produce the formal wording of the amendment before the voting ended and the amendment had already passed?  

I would guess it is because you, and everyone else who voted either way, understood what they were voting on.  There was a long thread a few days ago, accompanied by a poll, that explained what preferential voting was, and it was favored in that poll too.

Maybe this is an effort to assure a Democratic/
Progressive majority in the fantasy government, but we ARE the majority of registered voters,  so this system is more fair than a system which would ensure that a Republicans are elected against the will of the majority.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Well, that seems rather silly. If that is indeed the case, any voting done on the amendment ought to be declared null and void on that basis, and perhaps voted on again AFTER a written document is produced.

Exactly my point.

Supersoulty,

Why didn't you ask someone to produce the formal wording of the amendment before the voting ended and the amendment had already passed?  

I would guess it is because you, and everyone else who voted either way, understood what they were voting on.  There was a long thread a few days ago, accompanied by a poll, that explained what preferential voting was, and it was favored in that poll too.

Maybe this is an effort to assure a Democratic/
Progressive majority in the fantasy government, but we ARE the majority of registered voters,  so this system is more fair than a system which would ensure that a Republicans are elected against the will of the majority.

I raised objection ot it on several occations.  My point is, how can we pass an Amendement if there is nothing writen down.  I admit, that I am firmly against PV but I think that this raises an interesting point.

Polls don't mean anything.  If we believed all the polls on this site, then the number of people voting for me and GWBFan combined is going to be double that of what Nym will get in June.  Highly unlikly.  The point is that nothing has been writen.  This concern ONLY became apparent to me when our new friend JLD posted that he could not find the amendment acctually writen down.

It doesn't matter if you are the majority of registered voters.  You complain about one man one vote.  I say we should enforce this priciple in this instance.  ANYTHING that pushes ANY agenda should NEVER becmoe a part of this Constitution.

I'll admit that the bulletin board format is not the best format for this...it is hard to distinguish between was is "official" and what is not.  So at some point, Lewis took the initiative and declared an official vote on the constitution and the amendments.  It's would be a waste of time to have a argument about the "binding" wording of the PV amendment because everyone knows what it says, or at least they would know if they read the earlier thread.   The case is the same with the electoral districts...you had to go back to earlier threads to figure out what we were actually voting on.  It would be nice if everything was in writing in a single, permanent place, but we had to move forward with what we had.

I agree the poll was mostly meaningless, but does show their was some support for general idea, and some discussion of it, before the real vote was taken.

I think you are co-opting the principle of "one man, one vote" to suit a purpose it was never meant to apply to.  "One man, one vote" means that every person should have a vote, and that everyone's vote should count equally.  For instance, some enlightenment-era thinkers believed that educated people, or people with a certain amount of property should have their votes counted double or triple.  "One man, one vote" stands in opposition to the proposals: it says that everyone should have an equal opportunity to influence the election.  It says nothing on the mechanics of how the votes are counted.   As long as everyone has the same number of votes and they are counted under the same procedure, "one man, one vote" is fulfilled.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

I assume it is to make sure we only have registered voters voting.