Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
December 08, 2019, 07:29:57 pm
News: 2019 Gubernatorial Endorsements Close today at noon

  Atlas Forum
  Atlas Fantasy Elections
  Atlas Fantasy Government
  Constitutional Convention (Moderators: Gustaf, Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee)
  Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print
Author Topic: Parliamentary Universalism (Motion at Vote)  (Read 35717 times)
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,087
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #100 on: May 24, 2009, 01:47:11 pm »

Nay, Abstain
Logged
Bacon King
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 18,360
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #101 on: May 24, 2009, 03:39:56 pm »

aye, abstain
Logged
CultureKing
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 3,196
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #102 on: May 24, 2009, 09:20:39 pm »

Aye, Nay
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #103 on: May 24, 2009, 10:15:59 pm »

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #104 on: May 24, 2009, 10:21:37 pm »

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

Each side makes a strong point (grateful I don't get a vote Wink). I will bring the matter to a vote after this and allow the delegates to decide between the two.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #105 on: May 24, 2009, 10:25:40 pm »

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

Each side makes a strong point (grateful I don't get a vote Wink). I will bring the matter to a vote after this and allow the delegates to decide between the two.

Makes sense to me.  I hardly noticed the caveat in there when I first posted it, but I'm not unhappy about it now; it's how constitutional amendments work in the Midwest, which has always kept our system, well, interesting Wink

(no matter how you feel about the ilikeverinship elections now, do note how easy it will be to change them to something more in line with the status quo!)
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #106 on: May 25, 2009, 03:25:47 pm »

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

     I agree that the populace of Atlasia is sane enough to not pass dumb amendments, but I think it never hurts to set the bar for amendments higher. In both Atlasia & real life the important amendments have gotten passed anyway.

     That aside, I'm not aware of how many really significant changes have been blocked by "no-change zombies". Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #107 on: May 25, 2009, 05:13:48 pm »

     Wait, does that say that the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority in both houses?

It's universalism, so it would be a majority of all Atlasians in agreement. It gave me pause as well, but this is the proposal thus far. It is easier to pass it and edit it after.

     Even if it is a majority of all Atlasians, I still don't like it. That's how you end up with hundreds of amendments cheapening the process like in California or Texas.

I can understand that argument IRL, but here on the forum I think our population is small and sane enough that we'd not do such things. (and even if we did we'd be able to fix it no problem)  This also allows reforms to be made easier, requiring fewer active members to counteract "no-change zombies" (which I don't intend to refer to people who oppose significant change to the government structures here but instead the occasional voter who happens to wander around and takes the default option on every issue, which is usually "no").

     I agree that the populace of Atlasia is sane enough to not pass dumb amendments, but I think it never hurts to set the bar for amendments higher. In both Atlasia & real life the important amendments have gotten passed anyway.

     That aside, I'm not aware of how many really significant changes have been blocked by "no-change zombies".

You're about to Tongue

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe, but doesn't that kind of defeat the point of increasing activity?

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Then just do what the Midwest does and have a Constitution-as-Amended.

Come to think of it, why couldn't we have a national constitution as short and as simple as the regional ones?
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #108 on: May 25, 2009, 09:33:32 pm »

Also, I think if it were introduced without much fanfare we would be able to get an amendment through without zombies appearing to vote against it.

Maybe, but doesn't that kind of defeat the point of increasing activity?

     But if we succeed in increasing activity, I imagine that no-change zombies would become less of a problem, as more active citizens would also be easier to convince of the necessity of a given change.

     Furthermore, I think that it is annoying to deal with a Constitution with a large number of amendments. Just look at the wiki page; each amendment has its own page, complicating matters for people who want to familiarize themselves with Constitutional matters or want to see if an exact matter is touched on that they do not see in the main body of the text. Even if we overturn a bad amendment that gets passed, that's two more pages for amendments that end up taking up space on the list of amendments.

Then just do what the Midwest does and have a Constitution-as-Amended.

Come to think of it, why couldn't we have a national constitution as short and as simple as the regional ones?

     A Constitution-as-Amended would be a wonderful idea. I find it quite cumbersome to have a Constitution whose original text is separated from its amendments.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #109 on: May 25, 2009, 10:33:22 pm »

Final Judiciary Vote Count
Aye = 9
Nay = 1

Final Amendments Vote Count
Aye = 4
Nay = 1
Abstain = 5

Quorum: Achieved
Results: Judiciary passes, Amendments fails



If you put up separate versions with majority and two-thirds for the Amendments article, I will be happy to bring up a vote between the two and NOTA to get it passed.
Logged
Marokai Backbeat
Marokai Blue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 17,489
United States


Political Matrix
E: -7.42, S: -7.39


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #110 on: May 25, 2009, 11:40:44 pm »

I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #111 on: May 26, 2009, 12:03:42 am »

I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.

Yeah, that's cool. A few options would be two thirds of both Houses, two thirds of a joint sitting of both Houses (ie, everyone votes together, rather than passed by the Senate and then by the House, each with a two thirds majority), or passed by the Senate (simple majority) and then the House (two thirds majority).
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #112 on: May 27, 2009, 08:25:02 pm »

I would easily vote for an amendments section that requires a two thirds majority. I think a simple majority cheapens the process, considering the importance of Constitutional Amendments.

Yeah, that's cool. A few options would be two thirds of both Houses, two thirds of a joint sitting of both Houses (ie, everyone votes together, rather than passed by the Senate and then by the House, each with a two thirds majority), or passed by the Senate (simple majority) and then the House (two thirds majority).

Do you want to create the new versions, then?  I'm not sure which two-thirds proposal people would favor.
Logged
Smid
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,154
Australia


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #113 on: May 27, 2009, 08:30:26 pm »

Personally, I'd prefer the passed (normally) by the Senate, and then requires a 2/3rd majority of the House. Two-thirds of a joint sitting would probably be easiest to manage, because you could just open a thread and have everyone vote in it.
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #114 on: May 31, 2009, 11:08:25 pm »

Bump. Need your thoughts guys.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #115 on: June 09, 2009, 11:01:07 pm »

Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest preferential voting.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #116 on: June 16, 2009, 07:33:41 pm »

Okay, here are three possible articles, each with their own spin on it.

Option 1, which is that it is like any other bill:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Option 2, which is most similar to the system today.  Basically, the bill would have to be approved by two-thirds of one of the Houses of Congress to be put to a full vote:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

And Option 3, an interesting third idea based off Smid's idea.  It would give the Senate more power.

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

I suggest preferential voting.

Hello?

(and the "preferential voting" thing was to determine which of these should be used)
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #117 on: June 16, 2009, 08:03:55 pm »

Sorry about the delay. I like your idea for preferential voting, otherwise I would have to hold two votes to weed out one option first and then pick between the remaining two.

I bring the following motion for a vote. There are three options in this vote. Please indicate your first and second preference by indicating with a 1 and 2. Voting shall last for 48 hours at the discretion of the presiding officer.

Option 1
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Option 2
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.


Option 3
Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.
Logged
Associate Justice PiT
PiT (The Physicist)
Moderators
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 28,839
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #118 on: June 16, 2009, 08:11:51 pm »

[  ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #119 on: June 16, 2009, 08:58:29 pm »

1. Option 3
2. Option 1
3. Option 2
Logged
Devilman88
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 2,498


Political Matrix
E: 5.94, S: 2.61

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #120 on: June 16, 2009, 09:13:16 pm »


[ 3 ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3
Logged
MaxQue
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 11,087
Canada


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #121 on: June 20, 2009, 12:39:42 am »

[2] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[ ] Option 3
Logged
Daniel Adams
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 1,424
Georgia


Political Matrix
E: 9.03, S: 2.43

Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #122 on: June 20, 2009, 11:55:40 am »

[ ] Option 1
[1] Option 2
[2] Option 3
Logged
Purple State
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 6,713
United States


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #123 on: June 20, 2009, 09:51:37 pm »

I gave it four days and not even the universalists bothered to vote. This motion lacks any sort of quorum and thus fails.
Logged
ilikeverin
Atlas Politician
YaBB God
*****
Posts: 15,879
Timor-Leste


Show only this user's posts in this thread
« Reply #124 on: June 20, 2009, 09:58:17 pm »

I gave it four days and not even the universalists bothered to vote. This motion lacks any sort of quorum and thus fails.

Sportsmanlike of you.

Well, given that it got the most votes of the people that did vote, I motion for a vote on the most default of articles:

Quote
You must be logged in to read this quote.

Maybe a simple up or down vote on an article that essentially changes nothing will encourage people to vote, because then they don't even have to think.
Logged
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  


Login with username, password and session length
Logout

Terms of Service - DMCA Agent and Policy - Privacy Policy and Cookies

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines

© Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Elections, LLC