Neualtenburg Constitution

All arguements aside This is what needs to be accomplished to get the senate up and ready for elections.

We need to determine how many seats there will be initially

We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact.

We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as.
Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate.

We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other.

We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more.

We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority.

There will be other things to decide but these things are where I think we need to start

1. We need to determine how many seats there will be initially

I like the 10% rule with a minimum of 5. No limits on parties.

2. We need to organize how the majoity and Minority interact.

I was intrigued by the d'Hondt method but it seems to favor large parties over small. I'd like just the opposite and am willing (as demonstrated previously) to create a system where smaller parties exercise more power. I'll think need to think about this more.

3. We need to come to terms on how many parties the senate will initially be comprised as. Meaning there may be 500 parties available for the election but how many parties do we want taking part in the actual senate.

We need to start a faction thread and see how many different parties are interested. Would you like to do that Talen? Once we see how many serious parties there are with enough members, we can decide if it's too many. I don't think it will be though.

4. We need to structure the initial voting arrangement ( ie yay, nay, abstain) and how ties will work and or what happens when a bill becomes defeated..will it come back next session. We also need to know what constitutes a bills passage to law...will it be a simple majority vote to win or other.

Yes. I am all for simplicity, given that this is a small group. We can let the system grow in complexity later. I like simple majority for laws and 2/3 vote for constitutional amendments.

5. We need to determine the actual period of time that an elected senator will serve for. Will we have elections every four months, six months, or more.

I'd like to have 2 month terms of service. This is because our lease is on a 4-month schedule. I'd hate to see a single government take out the entire city due to a bad term.

6. We need to determine what administration roles are necessaryand how they are staffed. Will the elected senate hold elections amongst themselves for these positions or will the majority party and minority party be assigned positions based on being either the majority or minority.

This is up in the air as it depends on the structure of the Representative branch. I'll revisit this in detail this weekend.

~Ulrika~

I think this is good. We will want to cap this as the population grows as we do not want a really huge governing body. Productivity declines rapidly in large groups.



I agree with you Ulrika. I would be for favoring the minorities making it harder for a large group to run rough shot over everyone else.

Personally I like your proposal to have 2 votes. One weighted per the parties and one not.



I propose a 5 person minimum for a recognized party. I agree that we probably need to see how many the parties form and adjust it with adequate time before the elections. Yes, I agree, start a faction thread and after say a month we will have a pretty good idea of what we will be working with.



Thoughts:
1. There should be a senior senator, maybe the one that receives the most votes, who will break ties.

2. If a vote is not passed I think it should be killed. Later we can modify this as the need for complexity arises.

3. A vote is passed with a simple majority unless a filibuster is used in which a 2/3 majority will be needed.

4. Once a bill passes, send it to the Academy where they can veto it under the grounds of being unconstitutional.

5. Once a bill passes the Academy it is sent to the Guild where they can veto it on the grounds of fiscal or possibly moral issues.

6. If either the Academy or Guild veto the bill they have 2 options. A. Kill it right then B. Make changes that would be acceptably and send it back to the Senate where the process starts over with the exception of a 2/3 majority being required to pass.

7. I agree with a standard 2/3 majority for constitutional issues.



Seems to me that if we do it every 4 months that there will kind of always be a campaign going on. I like 6 months myself.

Maybe we do have a bad term but I would try to have faith in the system and just ride it out if we do.



I am unsure what administrative positions are needed but this needs to be discussed. Does anyone have any suggestions?

I don't know if this is the place for it but it occurs to me that we need some kind of law enforcement agency and a jail.

A sheriff will need to be elected and he/she will appoint his deputies to enforce the laws.

They could also be involved in defending the city against attack by griefers by using those ejectors or whatever sending them home or other methods. Just an idea... lol.

actually --there will be a jail in the Kriminal Museum

Cool, I had not heard that. Who will enforce the laws?

Also I have been thinking it would be nice if this were a no-fly zone. After visiting Old England I kind of liked having to walk. It made me take more interest and time in exploring the city.

Well, I do apologize to everyone for sounding "condescending". I think I've been watching too much parliamentary debates in RL and tend to catch their rhetoric. I promise to adopt a more neutral stance from now on.

There was no intention on offending anyone - just debating some things that worry me. I tried, for the better or the worse, to catch up by reading many sources on political systems to fundament my arguments. I have been reading very interesting things on failed governmental systems, and the reason why people think they failed. I'm no political scientist myself, and don't claim to be one. I form opinions based on what I read. Sometimes the things I read are plainly wrong; sometimes they give interesting insights on what are common pitfalls to avoid. Since there is still an open debate on how things shall be done in Neualtenburg, I tried to share those insights. That's all.

I have absolutely no problem in trying "novel ideas". However, I also expect that these ideas to be shared, discussed, and, at the very least, analysed for their basic soundness - and not blindly accepted just because they are "novel". My first reaction to the proposed model of the three Branches was "way cool! I love it!" - purely an emotional response. Then Ulrika posted a link for checking out the inherent checking and double-checking systems that have to be incorporated in any political system to make it work. My second reaction was more rational and more in the lines of "hey, it doesn't only look cool, but it actually works!". I think that's the correct approach to any "novel" proposal. Kendra's Guild presentation has been more "interactive", but the more replies I read, the better the overall picture sounds (I just panicked with Shatmo's post but after all there was nothing to worry about).

That said and done, I must apologize to Talen personally. There was no intention to "pick on you personally" or any intention on "disagreeing" on every proposal you made. I just felt that some things have to be addressed properly and "put into paper". As the Senate (I bow to the majority decision of keeping that name...) will be the only body named in the Constitution that will be elected democratically in the Government, I assumed that it would also be the one with the most detailed processes being defined. After all, the Guild (and the Academy) will be largely meritocracies, based on subjective ruling, and not needing much more to start beyond what has already been proposed (all the internal details can be decided later by those branches).

The Senate, however, needs some more thought. Since drawing from previous experience or RL models has not been well accepted, I can only formulate the following guidelines:

1. Don't make the Senate too small (no divergent opinions) neither too large (people will not be able to coordinate the proceedings). 5-11 is a reasonable trade-off for starters.
   
2. If you want party representations, do it properly. The right of association to form a party that can be elected is a fundamental right as important as the right to exercize free speech.
   
3. Avoid too-small parties. A good rule of thumb is that a party must have at least 2/3 of the senate seats to be able to present itself to elections (this avoids "vacant seats"
   
4. Mantain proportionality between seats and votes. Nothing is more frustrating than having "useless votes" (ie. ones that won't count towards the number of seats).
   
5. If the whole concept of parties is too complicated to implement (ie. parties need to be formed in lists, have X members, then there has to be a method to assign seats proportionally to the votes, and finally incorporate the open lists election), just drop the "formality" of parties. Just put in the Constitution that people may or may not belong to political "groupings", and each person simply runs himself or herself for a seat.
   
6. Avoid "artificial control" on the Senate voting processes, the number of parties "allowed", or "formal definitions" on what a "majority" or a "minority" is. The simplest system is always the best: the party or group with the largest number of seats, as proportionally represented by the votes, "rules the house" (ie. they have "won the elections". The rest is "opposition" which doesn't need to be formalized.
   
7. If this is an overall wish, tweak the election system to allow very small parties to get a seat.
   

I second Billy's proposal for the passing of a bill (no pun intended!). It's clean, simple, straightforward, not biased, and functional. Details can be added later (ie. probably we would have to "publish" the laws online and they would only be effective when published, etc.).

As to administrative functions, here are some thoughts...

1) I had wrongly assumed that the Burgermeister was nominated by the Senate, but Kendra pointed out that he/she is nominated by the Guild. That's even better!
2) In that case, I would think that both the Senate and the Academy should nominate administrative functions as well. I suggest that the Academy nominates the Chief Justice and the Senate, like Billy proposed, the Senior Senator (First Speaker?). He/she could fill in the role of Public Relations (Foreign Office?).
3) If there are parties elected for the Senate, each elected party will have at least the Party Leader (Party Speaker?) represented in the Senate. That's the person responsible for the rest of the party members.
4) The Senior Senator could be elected by the Senate (ie. the Senate votes upon candidates). Alternative: the party with the largest number of seats nominates the Senior Senator directly. Note that under a closed-list, party-based election system it's not possible to know "who was the person elected with the most votes".

Using this logic, the "official representation" of Neualtenburg outside the city is Burgermeister (the money) - Senior Senator (the power of the people) - Chief Justice (the right).

Besides those I don't see any other administrative function that aren't addressed already by the other branches...

On the previous post, replace "Chief Justice" by "Sheriff" I like "Sheriff"

I understood that the "policing" was part of the Academy's responsabilities. However, bad practices related to commerce are under the umbrella of the Guild. Have I got this right?

Uhm --The Burgermeister should be appointed by all three branches I would think (or IMHO) --you might have confused this with the Gildemeister who is selected by Die Gilde.

Illegal commerce activities are punished by Die Gilde .

A traditional police force won't work here. What if no policemen are online? The laws are set by the 3 branches, the punishments should be dealt with by the Guild and Academy, and civillians should be allowed to enforce the law on some of the more detrimental crimes (i.e. detrimental griefers).

Each law should contain a statement that tells if the citizens are allowed to enforce it. We don't want them enforcing commerce infractions, but we might need them to enforce anti-particle bombing laws.

Not to mention that there are many gun happy people in SL, and the possiblity of becoming a deputy would be enough to attract the not so serious. Yes I know we would want to put respected citizens in the roles of deputy, but people are cunning. I would hate to see law enforcement abuse problems, which are bound to rise in the proposed Law Enforcement method above.

So I would say No to a Sheriff and deputies.

For the record --the jail in the kriminal museum is a tourist attraction --not a functioning jail

That is the responsibility of the Sheriff. He appoints deputies and organizes a schedule where at least one is online at all times. This schedule can be posted in the jail and we will know who to contact if we need help.



Seems like the Acadamy would hold court to decide upon a person’s guilt and if found guilty the Guild would be required to follow the court’s orders.



I have a clear vision of Gomer Pyle screaming “CITIZEN’S ARREST… CITIZEN’S ARREST” as he chases down Barney Fife… lol.



A good argument for NOT having citizens enforcing the laws.



It would be the responsibility of the Sheriff to appoint good deputies and if we do not think he is doing a very good job we could impeach him/her. We could also require confirmation of the deputies from the 3 branches of Govt. This would help regulate the quality of person we give power too.

Lastly it would just be fun to have a Sheriff and everything that goes with it. I could see someone REALLY getting into the roll and running with it. If it is done right it would be a HUGE asset to the city.

Just my opinion, I could be totally wrong… hehe.

Oops on the Burgermeister. Ok, nominated by the three branches. So the Gildemeister steps in for a 4-person Cabinet?

Satchmo made me think about the "police force". I think he's right, on the practical side of it. Actually, the idea of the Chief Justice/Sheriff/whatever was more symbolical that practical. No, I also can't envision a "policeman at every corner" attitude.

We can have a similar notion to "Citizen's Arrest". Basically this is just a way to eject/ban griefers and nothing else. Reserved to the group officers, who are the de facto "police force" in SL group-owned land. I could imagine that if someone sees an avatar doing something "forbidden by law" (say, prim robbing, or setting up an illegal vendor, or parking their hovercars on top of the Main Square - there was one there this morning), they would get them fair warning, and eventually use Group IM to get one of the group officers to ban that avatar.

More serious things (ie. ToS abuse) are also handled by the Lindens anyway. BTW, Haney Linden was at the Church today Not to attend service, but most probably to look upon a report abuse (or following on an IM to the Life Helpers, I don't know), as the leaders of the Dark Side Mafia group decided it would be fun to disturb the event. I was extra polite to them and only slightly threatening ... but probably some of the attendants did not have the same degree of patience, and went ahead. Well, such is life.

(This is reposted from the Senate thread. It should've gone here.)

I'd like to focus on checks and balances. One of the biggest arguments for the creation of a multibranch government is the presence of checks and balances. If we are going to have a multibranch government, we must concretely establish the checks and balances.

On this web page you can see the checks and balances employed in the U.S. system. They are:

1. Legislative Branch
   1. Checks on the Executive
      1. Impeachment power (House)
         
      2. Trial of impeachments (Senate)
         
      3. Selection of the President (House) and Vice President (Senate) in the case of no majority of electoral votes
         
      4. May override Presidential vetoes
         
      5. Senate approves departmental appointments
         
      6. Senate approves treaties and ambassadors
         
      7. Approval of replacement Vice President
         
      8. Power to declare war
         
      9. Power to enact taxes and allocate funds
         
      10. President must, from time-to-time, deliver a State of the Union address
      
      
   2. Checks on the Judiciary
      1. Senate approves federal judges
         
      2. Impeachment power (House)
         
      3. Trial of impeachments (Senate)
         
      4. Power to initiate constitutional amendments
         
      5. Power to set courts inferior to the Supreme Court
         
      6. Power to set jurisdiction of courts
         
      7. Power to alter the size of the Supreme Court
      
      
   3. Checks on the Legislature (bicameral Legislative branch has self checking)
      1. Bills must be passed by both houses of Congress
         
      2. House must originate revenue bills
         
      3. Neither house may adjourn for more than three days without the consent of the other house
         
      4. All journals are to be published
      
      
   
   
   
   
2. Executive Branch
   1. Checks on the Legislature
      1. Veto power
         
      2. Vice President is President of the Senate
         
      3. Commander in chief of the military
         
      4. Recess appointments
         
      5. Emergency calling into session of one or both houses of Congress
         
      6. May force adjournment when both houses cannot agree on adjournment
         
      7. Compensation cannot be diminished
      
      
      
   2. Checks on the Judiciary
      1. Power to appoint judges
         
      2. Pardon power
      
      
      
   3. Checks on the Executive
      1. Vice President and Cabinet can vote that the President is unable to discharge his duties
      
      
   
   
   
3. Judicial Branch
   1. Checks on the Legislature
      1. Judicial review
         
      2. Seats are held on good behavior
         
      3. Compensation cannot be diminished
      
      
      
   2. Checks on the Executive
      1. Judicial review
         
      2. Chief Justice sits as President of the Senate during presidential impeachment
      
      
   
   

For our government I propose:

1. Representative Branch
   1. Checks on the Artisanal
      1. Sets taxation rate
         
      2. Proposes budget
         
      3. Trial of impeachment
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Philosophic
      1. Approves candidates for admission to branch
         
      2. Amends constitution
         
      3. Trial of impeachment
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Representative (checks itself)
      1. Utilizes a dual voting system
         
      
      
   
   
   
2. Artisnal Branch
   1. Checks on the Representative
      1. Veto power
         
      2. Gildemeister serves as tie breaker in representative branch votes
         
      3. Can call emergency sessions of the Representative branch
         
      4. Sits as Burgermeister during philosophic impeachment
         
      5. Approves budget
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Philosophic
      1. Approves candidates for admission to branch
         
      2. Provide pardons for those within branch
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Artisanal (checks itself)
      1. Members can vote out all other members with a 2/3 vote
         
      
      
   
   
   
3. Philosophic Branch
   1. Checks on the Representative
      1. Judicial review and right to discharge
         
      2. Sits as Burgermeister during artisanal impeachment
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Artisanal
      1. Judicial review and right to discharge
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Philosophic (checks itself)
      1. Members can vote out all other members with a 2/3 vote
         
      
      
   
   

We must have checks and balances. Additions are welcome. If you disagree with a particular item please suggest a replacement. Gwyneth, as a European your input is invaluable, given your novel experience (relative to us USers).

~Ulrika~

Ah yes, Ulrika. The site you quoted is a time-saver I liked it a lot, it's one of the very few references I read that actually summarizes all the stuff

I agree generally on everything, just a few questions popped into my mind:



I believe that this is your proposal for having one party vote and one senator vote (ie. everybody at the Senate votes for themselves on a second round)?

On a long-term basis, I would expect that major parties (the ones that tend to "stay around" in legislature, even if winning/losing elections) will all have some sort of vote discipline internally to make sure that the dual voting system does not stop them to pass legislation. Probably parties like the Anarchists (or any party promoting free thinking) will never have vote discipline (it's rather against their own nature), so in those cases, a dual voting system will make a difference. However, this will be only important during the first mandates. After a year or so, the remaining parties will make sure that some sort of vote discipline stays in place. Can't have members suddenly vote against the party's "official line".

Currently, most European legislatures (and this includes the European Parliament as well) have vote discipline on all issues not pertaining to morals and ethics. in those cases it's usual to allow members to vote according to their own conscience. Most left-wing and right-wing parties will never allow a breach of vote discipline, even on those issues (individual deputies simply refuse to attend sessions in those cases ).

But then again, I never heard of a dual-voting system as a means of self-checking, so this may actually work. Billy's proposal to pass bills could also be extended to have a three-step process in voting on a law:

1. Vote to accept the motion (ie. make sure that everybody agrees that this bill should be introduced to be voted)
   
2. Vote to accept the law in general (ie. it may have some problems to fix later, but we agree that this law should be put into practice). This is followed by debate to hammer out each item, step by step.
   
3. Vote to accept the law specifically (ie., we have ironed out all tiny details where the law was too vague)
   

This is not the same as a dual-vote system. It's just a way to make sure everybody pays attention to what's being proposed and voted upon. And if suddenly a party finds out that the original "spirit of the law" is being changed during the debate, they can vote differently later on the last step.

BTW, another self-check is certainly "Publish all bills" (ie. Website of the Official Journal of the Neualtenburg Government). Bills are effective on the date of publication (and not the date on voting).



No way to overrule the veto? Anyway, I would limit it to a "veto on all economic/finantial issues". Hmm. Too vague. "Veto power on budget proposals", ie. combine the two powers (veto + budget approval) into only one

The second issue - having the Gildemeister as "tie breaker" is intriguing. Does this mean that the Gildemeister will attend all Senate sessions? I'm aware that they will be public (unlike the Gilde internal sessions lol), but will this mean that the Gilde will be able to "step in" and vote? An unelected person? Hmmm I still prefer the figure of Senior Senator or First Speaker to do that.

Question: what is a "tie break"? If you vote upon a bill to pass, you either have the majority of the votes, or you don't have them. There is no "tie" - ie. if 4 senators vote for a bill to pass, 4 vote against, and 1 abstains or is ill and did not attend (and thus only 8 votes are counted), the bill is not passed (simple majority is always 50% of the votes + one vote, not counting abstentions or votes not present). Actually I can't see any situation where the Gildemeister needs to step in.

Even if there is vote discipline within parties, the proposed dual voting system will have an effect. The reason is, is that a party's first vote, assuming vote discipline, is multiplied by their number of seats, whereas the second vote is not. Thus the two votes are not equivalent.

Representative vote with vote discipline (first vote)

 n  Seats  Yes  No
-------------------
 A    3     3   0
 B    2     2   0
 C    2     0   2
 D    1     0   1
 E    0     0   0
-------------------
            5   3    Passes

Party vote (second vote)

 n  Votes  Yes  No
-------------------
 A    1     1   0
 B    1     1   0
 C    1     0   1
 D    1     0   1
 E    1     0   1
-------------------
            2   3    Fails

I had the idea a while ago as a way to emulate a bicameral legislature using a unicameral one. In the U.S. our Legislative branch is bicameral, containing the House of Representatives and the Senate. The House has 435 seats which a apportioned among our fifty states by population. The Senate on the other hand has 100 seats which are filled with two senators from every state. As you can see, the House favors the majority by giving the more populous states more seats and the Senate favors the minority by giving small states equal status with large states. This is precisely what I'm trying to do with a single group except with factions instead of states.

I also enjoy this idea as it will give groups which would otherwise be excluded a role in the government.

I really like this! I'll add it all.

Done. Veto power on budget proposals only!

I got this from the U.S. system of checks and balances. There are always special situations where a member of one group can jump over and exercise power within another group. I agree with your argument that a tie breaker will never be required. I'll remove that.

Excellent suggestions! Thank you so much. This is really quite a bit of fun for me.

~Ulrika~

Since we don't have a wiki (I'm working on one now), I'm going to repost this a few times as it evolves. I've put modifications in italics.

1. Representative Branch
   1. Checks on the Artisanal
      1. Sets taxation rate
         
      2. Proposes budget
         
      3. Trial of impeachment
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Philosophic
      1. Approves candidates for admission to branch
         
      2. Amends constitution
         
      3. Trial of impeachment
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Representative (checks itself)
      1. Utilizes a dual voting system
         
      
      
   
   
   
2. Artisnal Branch
   1. Checks on the Representative
      1. Veto power over budget proposals
         
      2. Can call emergency sessions of the Representative branch
         
      3. Sits as Burgermeister during philosophic impeachment
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Philosophic
      1. Approves candidates for admission to branch
         
      2. Provide pardons for those within branch
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Artisanal (checks itself)
      1. Members can vote out all other members with a 2/3 vote
         
      
      
   
   
   
3. Philosophic Branch
   1. Checks on the Representative
      1. Judicial review and right to discharge RA members and parties
         
      2. Sits as Burgermeister during artisanal impeachment
         
      3. Approves parties for electoral candidacy
         
      
      
   2. Checks on the Artisanal
      1. Judicial review and right to discharge
         
      
      
   3. Checks on the Philosophic (checks itself)
      1. Members can vote out all other members with a 2/3 vote
         
      
      
   
   

One of the things which I thought would benefit us the most by creating a provisional government is discovering unseen problems in the system. Today it paid off. I realized that just like the Representative branch can approve candidates to the Philosophic branch, the Philosophic branch should be able to approve candidate parties to the Representative electoral process.

The Representative branch provides a vote of confidence for Philosophic branch candidates. They either trust the candidate or do not trust the candidate to uphold the constitution in an unbiased fashion.

The Philosophic branch will similarly provide a vote of confidence for Representative branch electoral candidates. They will either trust the faction or not trust the faction to follow through with a serious platform whose goal is to maximize the benefit to society while simultaneously respecting individual rights. The only candidates for dismissal are those with platforms that are openly hostile to the government and seek to do harm or those which are openly flippant and frivolous.

~Ulrika~

Proposed Article...

Citizenship in Neualtenburg shall be open to all.

- Ace

I second this proposal and ask that it be set forth immediatley.

Need I remind you we are still without a Constitution? The most you can do --you have already done which is suggest it's inclusion. Personally I have no objections to the proposal at all --and even agree with it, but it certainly couldn't be an official policy until we are out of the provisional stage.

Hmmmm thats funny I've already seen other measures adopted without a constitution in place...

Hmmmm --but your seconding a motion to be placed in the Constitution -- the other measures are part of the provisional government --if you would like propose this as a measure to be taken into the provisional government --go right ahead.

What I am proposing or rather Ace is proposing is that this goes into the constitution and this is a thread to discuss such an issue.

I am merely seconding this proposal and agree it needs to be in the constitution.

And even as a provisional government and before I believed this was a truism of the project that everyone was welcome to participate.

And I believe everyone already is welcome to join -- until this incident with Ace, that seems to have raised questions about the wisdom of bringing in people who's sole purpose seemed to be dismantling the system we are currently working on.