Not every proposal is made for ulterior motives to further some political agenda you think I and others have. I brought this up because I feel it would improve on a process that we currently have. That is it. No ulterior motives and no secret political agenda exist.

I have every intention on bringing this matter to a vote. I will be proposing multiple bills that change voting percentages grouped together by similarity sometime in the next day or so.

Based on the evidence, what need is there for change? We've passed more bills with 75% then we have other time periods so what pressing need is there for change?

I'm not referring to your political motives, I don't know what those may or may not be. Wolf though clearly has an agenda.

This proposed change would make it easier for me to pass some of my "controversial" proposals as well but I'm okay with having to either convince people of my proposals value, compromising, or changing course. That's what I think there needs to be more of in this region instead of trying to push through legislation.

How would it improve the process, Hile? The evidence shows that bills easily get more than the required 75%, and those that fail rarely get even a simple majority. The requirement as it is already works, so what real need is there to lower it? The only improvement would be that some bills would pass more easily, but we have data showing that only 4 bills out of 73 would be affected by a 66% requirement. Do we really need to make this change?

sorry, but data is very much like poetry - the same data set and relevant facts can be (and usually are) interpreted in many different ways - including this data. As I pointed out, I have no vested interest in 66% vs 75% - just an accurate depiction, without the character assassination as these threads regularly seem to turn into.

as a new comer I think TSP isn't in as good of shape as you might think. 1% of the total population is a 'citizen'. a fraction of that 1% governs the region. I'm here to learn and slowly get involved - I can't profess to fully understand the governance structure but as someone new it appears very odd and that the 1% is quite divisive (possible purposefully so).

I'd like to motion a vote on both of the below amendments. Since one is for the Charter and the other is for the CoL I would like these to be voted on separately.

Amendment to Article 3, Section 1, Clause 9 of the Charter:
9. Declarations of War and Treaties require a 66% majority in favor to be enacted or repealed.

Amendment to Article 7, Clause 8 of the Code of Laws:
8. Regions at war with The South Pacific or with which The South Pacific is at war shall be automatically considered Prohibited Groups. The Assembly may further designate Prohibited Groups via a vote with a 66% majority in favor, should the Cabinet and/or CSS request such a designation. The Assembly may rescind a Prohibited Group designation via a vote with a 66% majority in favor.

(05-24-2015, 08:28 PM)Hileville Wrote: Everyone says 75% has worked but it almost makes it impossible to achieve a lot of things.

Yet we have evidence that it does not make anything impossible. You still have not given comprehensive evidence of how 75% makes it difficult to pass things. You have specific examples that constitute no proof of a pattern. Under that logic I could also bring up a couple of failed bills and say 50% doesn't work.

(05-28-2015, 12:17 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote:

(05-24-2015, 08:28 PM)Hileville Wrote: Everyone says 75% has worked but it almost makes it impossible to achieve a lot of things.

Yet we have evidence that it does not make anything impossible. You still have not given comprehensive evidence of how 75% makes it difficult to pass things. You have specific examples that constitute no proof of a pattern. Under that logic I could also bring up a couple of failed bills and say 50% doesn't work.

Hear hear!