302 (DRAFT): Votes Required

[CasualSax]

Rule 203 will be changed to read:

203. A rule-change is adopted if and only if the vote, is unanimous among the eligible voters. If this rule is not amended by the end of the first complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a 2/3rds majority to be adopted.  If this rule is not amended by the end of the second complete circuit of turns, it automatically changes to require a simple majority to be adopted.

A voter may chose to abstain from voting by saying so.  Abstained votes are not used in calculating the majority of the vote.


------

EDITS:  The line that read "If a rule-change involves a transmutation, the number of votes shall be as stated in rule 109" was removed because 109 already specifically states that it over rides any other voting rules.

The line "A voter may chose to abstain from voting by saying so.  Abstained votes are not used in calculating the majority of the vote." was added to give voters the right to not vote.

The line "A simple majority is defined as any vote result where the number of yes votes outnumbers the number of no votes." was added to more specifically define what a simple majority is.

Major overhaul, to accomodate the opinionated nature of this Nomic.

ANOTHER major overhaul.

[quintopia]

can you add anything about abstainment?

[Rye Coal]

Majority should be defined. 51% of votes cast, 51% of eligible votes or is it a 2/3 majority etc...

[CasualSax]

"A simple majority" is already in use in the rules, I was assuming it didn't need to be defined as being greater than 50%.

[quintopia]

We should have absentee ballots.  For example, if someone cannot appear to vote during a given time period, or chooses not to appear, they may freely give permission to another player to vote for them under their best judgement.  Such absentee voting should be verifiable with the person giving the permission.

[quintopia]

In addition, a simple majority is defined to be >50% of eligible voters.  The voting requirement you are describing is a plurality.

[SuperusSophia]

I disagree.  If someone knows they cannot vote during a certain period of time, they should be able to inform us, and then their vote is merely abstained.  However, I very much dislike the idea of someone giving someone else their votes.

[CasualSax]

the method you suggest only differs from mine if you go to edit the value of each vote.  This way, if you're making, say, a King get a greater vote, you have to say "their vote counts twice" or something to that degree, whereas the method I suggest does not.

If we had more than three options, a 50% rule would need to be defined.  But as it so happens, you can not vote "maybe," and if you could, this rule would have to be edited anyway.

Absentee ballots where one person puts in what they want to vote for before the vote actually happens means that the issue could change completely from the time they ask for the absentee and the time the final draft comes out.

Absentee ballots where one person votes for another person is ludacris, and undermines our current pure democratic process.

[Rezantis]

Sorry, but I -like- the idea of all proposals requiring unanimous agreement for the first couple of rounds.  I could perhaps vote for this -next- round, but I want to get an idea of just how everyone views things first . . .

I consider provision for absentee ballots beyond the scope of rule 203, it would contradict with two other rules also in effect that would need to be modified first (the one stating that each voter can only have one vote, and the one laying out the outline of a turn - it has provision for people missing their vote).

[CasualSax]

So, no chance?  In that case, am I allowed to edit this into a completely different proposal?

[Itarien]

As a compromize between Rez's unanimous votes and the simple majority proposed by Sax why not 2/3rds or maybe even >75%.

If they were termed proxy votes. I don't think it would violate the rule stating each player has one vote and one only. A proxy vote is a vote lodged on someone else's behalf.

[CasualSax]

The problem is that once we reduce down from unanimous voting, it would be easy to change it further down to a simple majority.

[SuperusSophia]

I would imagine the unanimous requirment is somewhat constrainting as far as people expressing themselves is concerned.  Proposals will be much more convservative, and be more likely to try and please everyone.

But that's just me.

[Rezantis]

It must be remembered that the unanimous requirement is only for the first two circuits - I only really want it for the first circuit so we all get a feel for how things are working before we vote anything whacko in. :)

Moreover, I believe the rules are fairly clear that you can't give your vote to someone else.  If you give your vote to someone else to cast for you, -they have your vote-.  They cannot have more than one vote, so . . .

It's not -you- casting your vote if they do it for you.

[Itarien]

Its all semantics Rez, but I'm pretty sure that if you give some one proxy to vote they are casting their vote and then your vote not two of theirs.  You instruct the proxy on which way place your vote and your vote may be contrary to your proxy's. It is assumed that the absentee voter is informed and understands what they are voting for or against.

Consider Player A a present voter and Player B an absent voter. Player B nominates Player A to submit Player B's vote as per Player B's instructions.  For Player A to cast Player B's vote contradictory to Player B's instructions would be electoral fraud (which is not yet part of our nomic ruleset). When an absentee voter doesn't consider themself adequately informed they should leave their vote be forfeit as outlined by rule 105.

I think proxy voting should be the subject of a separate proposal to effectively consider punishments and guidelines for electoral fraud and proxy voting.

This is where we need a judge to make rulings on semantics :D