| The Mercurian Empire http://www.hermertia.com/ |
|
| [CB #2] Voting Laws [PASSED] http://www.hermertia.com/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=118 |
Page 1 of 2 |
| Author: | King Erastil [ July 2nd, 2015, 10:36 pm ] |
| Post subject: | [CB #2] Voting Laws [PASSED] |
Here is the voting laws we had discussed in mumble one night. Kings please vote yea or nay, dukes make a bill. 10.1 VOTING 10.1.1 Rank Ascension • King ascension - unanimous • Within borders - up to King or highest ranking liege lord. Can only promote to a rank lower than the liege lords rank. • Independent - 60% of the Council of the Crowned 10.1.2 Parliamentary • Only Dukes and Kings and lasts for a week • 60% without Dukes bill • 50% with dukes passing a bill 10.1.3 Applicants • 60%of the Kings • If bill passed by Duke then 50% of Kings 10.1.4 Duke Bill • 60% of Dukes 10.1.5 Veto • 66% of the Dukes are required and lasts for a week • Veto can only be done once. If the intent of the bill changes then the veto can be applied again. • Once bill has been passed it can only be vetoed within two weeks of its passing. |
|
| Author: | Joren [ July 3rd, 2015, 1:50 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
I believe this is how the Carta had it worded in the past, so I vote yea. Thanks for laying it out here Vor! |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ July 3rd, 2015, 1:52 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
I vote yes for these too. We can formalize into wording as well but it is mainly the ratios we want so we can refer to the base for now. This allows the power balance but also establishes the voice for the House of Dukes. |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 3rd, 2015, 3:09 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
This has my vote, Ill make a Duke Bill. |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 7th, 2015, 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
3 Kings have voted in favour and the Duke Bill has passed regarding this topic. These are now law yes? |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 7th, 2015, 9:38 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
3 Kings have voted in favour and the Duke Bill has passed regarding this topic. These are now law yes? |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ July 7th, 2015, 11:34 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
Yes as well as the dukes have passed there bill too. |
|
| Author: | Scrios V [ July 9th, 2015, 3:33 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
Now that we have the basics to go from I think this should be put into actual law format so there is no grey areas. I will write the rest tomorrow hopefully as it should not take too long but here is what I wrote for the veto points above: A veto is meant to uphold the collective interests of the community and should only be used for this reason. A veto vote must contain 66% or more of the House of Dukes and must be conducted, A) before the the bill has passed, or B) no more than two weeks after the bill has passed. A veto can only be applied once to a bill. However, if the bills intent or content has changed significantly then a veto can be applied again to the new content or intent. |
|
| Author: | Wysterian Labourer's Council [ July 9th, 2015, 7:19 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
This sounds good, except for, in my opinion, one point: how do we judge if a veto is upholding the collective interests of the community or not? Say a majority of Dukes sponsored a veto for a bill that many in the community disproved of, for whatever reason. Clearly, that would be visibly upholding the interests of the community. However, what if a same majority of Dukes sponsored a veto against a bill where the reactions of the community were mixed or unclear; perhaps it's a bill that won't affect much of the community, or perhaps it's a bill that many have strong and different opinions about; say 66% of dukes support the veto and so can pass it, but a number of remaining dukes are strongly against the veto and support the bill. Those dukes are also backed by a minority of the community who want the bill passed. In this hypothetical, it becomes harder to judge if the veto is upholding the interests of the community. In my opinion, the hypothetical dukes should certainly be allowed to veto; they have the same majority as the dukes that vetoed the bill everyone was against. But community opinion on the bill is divided, so is the veto truly upholding the interests of the community as a whole? This is why I feel the wording may be slightly problematic. There will likely be at least someone who opposes any given bill, but one person is clearly not indicative of the community as a whole. So where is that threshhold? |
|
| Author: | Petra Ravnikaar [ July 9th, 2015, 11:29 am ] |
| Post subject: | Re: Voting Laws |
Its still clear cut the way I see it regarding the veto. If the majority of Dukes want to pass a veto, the Kings must vote again on the bill. This is a good check on the system without it getting complex , i.e. involving sub votes from all members of the Empire etc. As it stands the clear cut numbers are a lot easier and less complicated to deal with. And im ok with that. Some issues might be hard to ascertain clear 'majorities of the community', but thats just government for you as I see it. |
|
| Page 1 of 2 | All times are UTC [ DST ] |
| Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group https://www.phpbb.com/ |
|