| Changing Voting Percentages |
|
I strongly believe it is time for TSP to make a change to the percentages set forth in the Charter for various activities. My proposal would be to change all variations of 75% to 66%. From my reading this would include citizenship denial/removal votes, CSS Admittance, Charter Amendments, and recall votes. I would also like to change Treaties and Prohibited Groups to 66% increasing it from 60%.
The goal here would be to streamline our system of votes and make 66% the only super majority vote threshold.
Given the issues over the 75% margin that emerged previously, I support lowering the threshold for those to a more fair margin.
Streaming the 60% ones also also seems like a fair change. I know some people might complain about using an uneven number but I think a fair democracy is more important than a round number.
I honestly don't think that would be necessary. 75% has worked fine for us.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System
I could get behind the 66/60 votes. I think the 75% has held a lot up of things that could've passed otherwise.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Could've =/= Should've. Just because something didn't pass, doesn't mean we should alter a system that has otherwise been working fine all the time. Besides, it hasn't help up a lot of things.
Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator. I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum. Legal Resources: THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System (05-22-2015, 10:41 PM)Kris Kringle Wrote: Could've =/= Should've. Just because something didn't pass, doesn't mean we should alter a system that has otherwise been working fine all the time. Besides, it hasn't help up a lot of things. The reason Kris wants it to stay at 75% is because he knows many things he doesn't want passed will be passed if we lower it to 66%. I'm all for this being a fan of fair democracy. Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
Full support.
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
I don't want to see the vote margins meddled with, just so Hileville can pass a bill to allow Belschaft back or try to recall Glen-Rhodes for a ninth time. This is complete silliness. You lost, Hileville.
I'm all for the 75% margin, we pass legislation with that margin all the time - and we often develop compromises to work around it too. Like the Local Council - that was a compromise between two groups would both could have passed with a lower margin, but it was ultimately the compromise option which received the most support. The 75% margin is good for our democracy, it encourages dialogue, discussion and compromise.
Uhhhhh?????
The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific
|
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |