Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Gulliver on December 08, 2015, 05:49:40 AM
-
There's been a small bit of debate on how membership in the legislature should work. The options I see right now are:
- The current system, where every citizen is automatically in the legislature;
- The old system, where citizens applied to be members and were voted in; or
- Another option not listed here.
This poll is meant to gauge which option enjoys broader support.
-
No citizenship application, all nations in the NS region that register on the forums with their NS nation are automatically citizens.
:whoops:
-
I can see myself part of a system where one must apply to join the legislature, however I could not support having each person requiring a vote to be admitted. It is far too inefficient.
-
\\ Senate Session 1st of October 2013 - Senate quorum call \\
\\ Senators: none \\
\\ Order of Business: 1-dancing \ 2-Senate quorum call \\
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/07/06/article-0-0CE2E7FD00000578-299_468x286.jpg)
(...)
2-Senate quorum call
The problem of a Senate without a quorum and free access without terms is both the abusive franchise of citizens into an issue being discussed in the Senate and, most importantly, the impossibility of establishing the quota of any vote - in simple terms, if you're free to join the Senate at any time and be present at any session, you will never know the complete universe of a vote, therefore cannot establish when you have a majority, two thirds or a failed motion.
I propose that there is a quorum call at the beginning of each session, listing the registered Senators, this will not only fix the total universe of senators at each session, it will also prevent the abusive dumping of new senators into a motion vote.
This brings up another issue, do senators have a life-long membership? An inactive Senator can be listed into a Senate Session even if he never participates and therefore, in case of many inactive, impede the normal function of the Senate? I think there should be a "fail to comply" clause on quorum calls. Senators may choose to abstain or be absent on the discussion but they have to declare present at a quorum call/senate session. If they do not comply for 3 sessions, they would lose their senate membership, until they apply again to Senate without any problem.
Current regulation:
Internal Procedures of the Senate (http://wiki.taijitu.org/wiki/Internal_Procedures_of_the_Senate)
Add a new section between "Meeting Places" and "Motions", called "Session"
1. The Senate Session will start with a quorum call, listing the acknowledged Senators that until the beginning of said session, who will be the only ones with the right to vote in said Session.
2. If a listed Senator fails to comply a quorum call by responding their presence, being absent for the third session in a row, a vote will be held to remove the absent Senator from the Senate, under the Constitutional right Article 2 Section 3, without penalty of reapplication through normal procedure.
3. If more than one issue is presented, the Speaker must present an Order of Business.
4. If a Senator disagrees with the Order of Business, a vote will be held to approve the Order of Business or a new Order of Business presented by a Senator before the vote.
-
I'm open to suggestions to change this proposals, after all, this is why we're at the Senate. I'd also like to invite Chief Justice Funkadelia to jump in and help the Senate to make flawless regulation.
Similar concerns to nowadays, not knowing how many are voting, when votes reach majority, we've made a work-around with the time limits but doesn't really give any security to the votes, any "side" or "party" can just cold-call whoever they want, atm people can literally be made citizen just to vote on a specific issue and ignore the region afterwards, so discussing about a Quorum solution might be proper atm.
-
While executive committees should be admitted through applications, the legislature should be automatic.
-
...
The problem of a Senate without a quorum and free access without terms is both the abusive franchise of citizens into an issue being discussed in the Senate and, most importantly, the impossibility of establishing the quota of any vote - in simple terms, if you're free to join the Senate at any time and be present at any session, you will never know the complete universe of a vote, therefore cannot establish when you have a majority, two thirds or a failed motion.
I propose that there is a quorum call at the beginning of each session, listing the registered Senators, this will not only fix the total universe of senators at each session, it will also prevent the abusive dumping of new senators into a motion vote.
...
I think there should be a "fail to comply" clause on quorum calls. Senators may choose to abstain or be absent on the discussion but they have to declare present at a quorum call/senate session. If they do not comply for 3 sessions, they would lose their senate membership, until they apply again to Senate without any problem.
...
Similar concerns to nowadays, not knowing how many are voting, when votes reach majority, we've made a work-around with the time limits but doesn't really give any security to the votes, any "side" or "party" can just cold-call whoever they want, atm people can literally be made citizen just to vote on a specific issue and ignore the region afterwards, so discussing about a Quorum solution might be proper atm.
I am in favor of a Quorum, it would solve all my issues with our current model and its potential for abuse. How would we divide the legislative session?
-
I think it would be best just to update quorum based on the number of people who participated in the most recent votes on a rolling basis.
-
I think it would be best just to update quorum based on the number of people who participated in the most recent votes on a rolling basis.
That makes the "quorum" completely unnecessary, it'd be more of a statistical reference than a binding one, you can't really not allow others to vote because it's over the quota of the last quorum, or you can't really get a number of how many people are really contributing.
I am in favor of a Quorum, it would solve all my issues with our current model and its potential for abuse. How would we divide the legislative session?
At that moment that I made the proposal I thought it would be by topic thread, but the "Session" was always a problem, in RL a session is easy because everyone is physically in a parliament and they will then vote after the discussion. I thought that each topic is an issue that will eventually lead to vote, since we have the 3 days vs 7 days voting times defined, maybe we can have that those 3 days is where the legislation discussion is a session and whoever is "present" can then participate on the voting. I'm not sure if the 3 days is fair to people who don't come to the forums that often or if it limits participation, maybe a more modern approach is necessary, but then again back then I proposed that people have 2 other chances to be "present" before they're taken out of the Senate Quorum list, maybe updating this variable to time, like a week, if you're not present for a week then you're out and have to "apply" again.
In short, Quorum call can be made when the vote is made and see who participated or who has participated on any other "issue"(thread) in the last week thus making people eligible to vote - Eliminating this "Session" nonsense.
-
As for citizenship, I wouldn't even require "citizenship", anybody with a nation in taijitu (registered on the forums with it, and a WA nation to avoid double accounts) can participate, it's not any different from those who register and Taijitu isn't their main region anyway, we have recent examples of that so why bother with formalities and oaths if they're not fully here anyway. It's not different from those that say they leave and don't apply back so they never left, it's not different from those that let their taijitu nations CTE and keep the WA nation elsewhere - those still vote - I'm calling all this "citizenship" a sham, so why not abolish it?
-
I am not fully following why there is a belief that a quorum system is necessary, especially if it is such a complex one as what is being proposed. Can anyone cite specific examples of why quorum is necessary?
-
well the quorum basically invalidates any vote in which a majority of eligible voters don't vote in, making it so its a rolling percentage is not really very useful, all in all, a quorum system should be easiest, if we can get everyone around.
-
I forsee alot of failed "passing" votes with this system to be honest.
Anyone check how many eligible voters we have and compare it to the avg number of total votes per voting session?
-
I forsee alot of failed "passing" votes with this system to be honest.
Anyone check how many eligible voters we have and compare it to the avg number of total votes per voting session?
Yeah, we'd have to start revoking citizenships from people who don't post like once a month.
-
I forsee alot of failed "passing" votes with this system to be honest.
Anyone check how many eligible voters we have and compare it to the avg number of total votes per voting session?
Yeah, we'd have to start revoking citizenships from people who don't post like once a month.
Wast should have the current roster of citizens, or another admin could check for # of people within the citizen group. Then compare that number to an average of 12 votes. A quorum wouldn't have us revoking citizenships but allow for knowledge of the universe of your voting population. Then again I don't believe being a citizen should automatically make one a legislator.
-
I forsee alot of failed "passing" votes with this system to be honest.
Anyone check how many eligible voters we have and compare it to the avg number of total votes per voting session?
Yeah, we'd have to start revoking citizenships from people who don't post like once a month.
Wast should have the current roster of citizens, or another admin could check for # of people within the citizen group. Then compare that number to an average of 12 votes. A quorum wouldn't have us revoking citizenships but allow for knowledge of the universe of your voting population. Then again I don't believe being a citizen should automatically make one a legislator.
Yes it has nothing to do with citizenship, that's why I even propose a different citizenship approach for the future.
Quorum really gives more security to the votes, maybe the universe of eligible voters would be small at first but the point is to let everyone participate informed, instead of fishing for votes where people don't really participate and only cast votes without even reading the discussions. If what I understand people were saying that we should take legislation more serious then we need legislators that are present and are willing to at least say they are present. Call it "disenfranchisement" if you want but you wouldn't want your country's senators/parliamentary deputies to care less for what they are passing and just raising their hands when queued.
Maybe the proposal is complicated, the original proposal was made for a different political system where we still had a Senate and things were slower, I admit it needs work, but it's the best way to bring actual responsibility to our legislative process. Maybe I am pushing for the rebirth of the Speaker, but we already admitted that the Citizen-Initiator/Liaison was doing the work of the Speaker, Wast is doing an excellent job, I'm sure that, instead of tracking citizens, tracking legislators is likely more compelling and easier.
-
I agree with Delfos' qourum system but with keeping the legislative to automatic. If we have a qourum, then we can have new people join in without the hassle of getting applied, the application system would scare off the more reserved and shy people, not to mention those who don't feel comfortable giving out any kind of information to strangers/acquaintance. The qourum would solve a lot of the current system's problems.
It would:
1)Keep track of voters and non-voters, and allow us to quelch inactivity in the voting process. Thus leading to more security within the process by allowing a better sense of the amount of total votes in the beginning.
2)The acquisition of a strong voting field by ensuring the vote's freedom from corruption, id est, the voting of those not actually interested or the coerced voting from random new citizens with alterior motives.
To better accomplish the second point, I suggest that all matters of votings be announced with simple/vague definition, with the qourum then held at that point. The qourum should last for 3 days, with no additional information on the actual discussion until afterwards. After the qourum closes, those that were marked in the qourum would learn of the vote and start discussing. Those that were not in the qourum may discuss, of course, they can not vote on the matter, unless one of them provides a widely accepted suggestion. Also, those who missed the qourum due to simply being too busy or personal matters can check with the moderator of the qourum to ensure they will not be accounted against, they are more likely than not those who participate with the boards interest in mind, due to taking the time to make sure they actually tell us why they were gone for a while-of course, they still can't vote.(And yes, this is to give leniency to those who are too occupied with school, job, family, or life, to follow Taijitu activities daily...unlike some of you basement dwellers who wake up daily just to make a poll ::) )
Quick Edit: And for those who wish to take it easy and not participate within the voting process may "sign up" for an exclusion from it. I don't think it needs to be said, but of course, they can not vote. Oh, and they'll need to already participated in at least 1 vote or have been active for 7 days or have posted 20 posts.( to ensure no one is snooping around)
-
Again, this all still seems to me like a solution in search a problem. I still have not seen a concrete example of the issue introducing a quorum of some sort is meant to solve. There's been some mention of people just showing up to vote without reading the proposal, but a quorum would not address that in anyway. Quorum just means enough people have to vote for it to be valid, not that any of the people voting have to particularly care.
-
Again, this all still seems to me like a solution in search a problem. I still have not seen a concrete example of the issue introducing a quorum of some sort is meant to solve. There's been some mention of people just showing up to vote without reading the proposal, but a quorum would not address that in anyway. Quorum just means enough people have to vote for it to be valid, not that any of the people voting have to particularly care.
Hopefully, this example will clear up any confusion. This is how I interpreted the qourum process.
Without qourum: Group A has received notice of an issue, and decide to discuss on it immediately. After seven days of the discussion, they have formed the options available for voting for. Group B has just walked in, they have been missing in the wilderness for months. They groggily pass by group A. They are too tired to listen to what they are saying and obviously just don't have the time to deal with it.They randomly push a button and quickly leave, making sure not to make eye contact with group A. Group C are skecthy individuals who all joined at once. They pack around the voting booth, trying to decide which course of action would be best to troll group A. Their employer laughs as he knows the vote will turn in his favor. Vote ends. As group A look at the votes, they do not realize what has just transpired.
With qourum: qourum day comes and everyone is given an idea of what the vote will be on. People who would like to vote would say so now, those who would not like to vote would say so now. Group A is decided, and everyone starts discussing. Vote time. Group A puts in votes. Group B lazily tries to walk in to the voting booth, but is stopped immediately. Group C didn't even make it past the legislative gates.
It's honestly more of a precaution than a solution to a problem. There wasn't a problem because the board was so inactive; But as soon as more start contributing to the Ecclesia, we are going to need to make sure we regulate it in some way so that those who like to walk into countries forums and screw and twist the country, can not simply waltz straight into our voting booths.
-
All of you keep saying that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quorum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quorum?s=t)
-
All of you keep saying that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quorum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quorum?s=t)
This is why I want forum likes. :D
-
All of you keep saying that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quorum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quorum?s=t)
Definitions, who needs them? :P ... By the way, I am about certain the second definition works.
-
All of you keep saying that word, but I do not think it means what you think it means.
Quorum (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/quorum?s=t)
Definitions, who needs them? :P ... By the way, I am about certain the second definition works.
If you use the second definition it does not make for a good, or even fair voting system.
-
It's honestly more of a precaution than a solution to a problem. There wasn't a problem because the board was so inactive; But as soon as more start contributing to the Ecclesia, we are going to need to make sure we regulate it in some way so that those who like to walk into countries forums and screw and twist the country, can not simply waltz straight into our voting booths.
My preference would be to have no quorum and introduce one if it becomes necessary. I think it is a mistake to design a system in which legislators are required to be very active, because the regional government will not have much need to legislate except to update its own procedures. A quorum system is going to require laws to be passed with a certain threshold of members, which means either (a) making the legislature have few members compared to citizens or (b) making the threshold very low.
-
It's honestly more of a precaution than a solution to a problem. There wasn't a problem because the board was so inactive; But as soon as more start contributing to the Ecclesia, we are going to need to make sure we regulate it in some way so that those who like to walk into countries forums and screw and twist the country, can not simply waltz straight into our voting booths.
My preference would be to have no quorum and introduce one if it becomes necessary. I think it is a mistake to design a system in which legislators are required to be very active, because the regional government will not have much need to legislate except to update its own procedures. A quorum system is going to require laws to be passed with a certain threshold of members, which means either (a) making the legislature have few members compared to citizens or (b) making the threshold very low.
This adequately explains my issues with that system
-
So we continue to do nothing?
-
One can always put forth a proposal to remove inactive members of leadership.
Doing nothing is what we're all about these days.
-
The quorum discussion is a bit of a distraction, I think. It's entirely dependent on the structure of the legislature itself and is a detail that can be worked out afterwards.
-
I feel we are at an impasse.
-
I feel we are focusing too much on how voting works instead of making a new government first, the voting method will fall into place after that.
-
I think it would be prudent to open a separate topic and poll for the issue of "quorum", whatever it's being used to referred to at this point, but I'm uncertain what the options would be.
-
So...
Is that 10:9 in favor of a legislature that votes on new members or 10:9 in favor of a legislature that takes 2 applications that get more-or-less automatically approved to join?
-
So...
Is that 10:9 in favor of a legislature that votes on new members or 10:9 in favor of a legislature that takes 2 applications that get more-or-less automatically approved to join?
More polls! :clap:
-
Basically, yes, because I was not intelligent enough to have the foresight for this >__>