How about some actual discussion on that referendum amendment, eh?

The fact that we have Kevn Klein attempting to interpret the Constitution is scary.

~Ulrika~

I too found the example interesting, but I think the flaw is that if the greifers outnumber the existing populace, then they actually *are* the existing populace and democratically are perfectly within their rights to do whatever they as the majority want to.

My personal view is very close to Ulrika, er... Kendra, um I mean Patroklus' view, but I see some very careful and very familiar exaggeration and twisting of facts going on in the scenario.

As FlyingRoc pointed out 2/3 of the RA is currently 4 out of 5 seats, doing that and retaining them for a subsequent election is hardly a "coup" or takeover position. Also the 34% figure is suspect to me. It was my understanding that the referenda were separate, not cumulative, therefore one is 50+1, the other is 60, not 34%.

In Canada, we have over the last 20 years gone through a very protracted period of constitutional reform and although we are more similar to the British system than the American, I think some of that experience is relevant.

For starters, any kind of referendum on a constitutional reform should have a higher "bar" than 50% plus 1. The province of Quebec came very close to succeeding from the country not to long ago and the issue of exactly how many people needed to vote yes was debated endlessly. In the end it was decided that a simple majority of one person or one percent is just not enough. If the amendment is something so serious as division of the state (or pretty much anything constitutional for that matter), having a situation where half of the population *disagrees* with the amendment yet it passes anyway is just not right. I would suggest that the very first referendum should be a 60% vote for ratification and the second one either the same or higher.

Secondly, there is the (mostly unwritten) concept in parliamentary law of "mandate." If a government is elected by a slim majority then they govern, but it has historically been considered "bad form" at best to radically alter the very shape and structures of government just because you are this years winner in the electoral polls. This is one of the things that strikes me about the current RA and something pointed out by another on this thread. If an RA gets in, with a sympathetic/cooperative guild or SC, there is little to stop them from ramming through bill after bill and altering the very fabric of government itself, even though in reality they merely represent this years pick for governance, and were perhaps not even chosen with the idea that they would change the entire foundation of the government once elected.

Constitutional change *must* be a slow process with a great deal of deliberation and cross-checking. I for one don't like the speed with which things are changing and have been slated for change in the Neualtenburg government. One of the bonuses of having the SC as it currently exists is that it is a "slow reservoir" sort of speak of knowledge and tradition that reaches back into Neualtenburgs past. The sober second thoughts and the experience of the SC acts as a good governor to my mind on the more ephemeral and changeable RA.

My current personal opinion is that change is not necessary, and although some see the SC as having a stranglehold on the constitution, no one seems to be concerned about the Guild's similar stranglehold on our finances. That is equally as "undemocratic" yet not contested at all.

If change is necessary, (along the lines of the second compromise position), then 50+1 is (IMO), unacceptable as a target for approval by the populace.

You write this and a paragraph later say you don't believe change {of the amendment system} is necessary. The two statements would seem to contradict one another to some degree. I am curious as to whether the statement I quoted refers only to constitutional changes or to the RA program as a whole this term.

I would argue that the mere fact we have legislative frameworks makes us slower moving than most of SL, where change happens at a sim owner's whim. I don't want Neualtenburg to become "the most conservative (in the sense of slowest changing) place in SL."

I'm glad that you agree that the constitution doesn't need amending (at least on this point) but I still think this statement needs challenging. The question is "What are the limits to be placed on the exercise of majority rule?" In the scenario I outlined the griefer group would be aiming to tear up the Bill of Rights, abolish democratic rule and restrict the rights of other Neualtenburg citizens. I can't agree they would be within their rights to act in this way, even if they are the majority.

Some would argue that the compromise proposal provides enough safeguards. I disagree. If I can come up with a scenario for the overthrow of democracy in N'burg then so can others and some would be motivated to do so (if only for the pleasure of destroying SL's first experiment in player-run government). I think it is worth thinking through constitutional changes with this in mind. The touchstone question for me is "What is the worst that could happen?"

Point of clarification: the 34% figure comes from requiring at least 50% (plus one voter) of the population to vote in order for the vote to be considered valid and then requiring at least 66% (plus one voter) of those voting to agree the amendment for it to pass. 50% of 66% is 33%, I rounded up to 34%. In practice, this is not the limiting factor. Any shadowy conspiracy that can take 2/3 of the RA in two consecutive elections would not have to much trouble rustling up an absolute majority of the popular vote.

Whoa. You truly understand the oft overlooked need to protect basic rights from the will of the majority. So many have the misconception that if democracy is good than more democracy is better. Thank you for joining the conversation.

~Ulrika~

Flyinroc, the point made by Ulrika is that in RL, countries like the US do have many more systems of checks and balances, since they have more institutions in government. Neualtenburg, for instance, does not have either a Head of State or a Cabinet of Ministers. It doesn't have a Council of State. It does not even have a bi-cameral system. All it has is a single-chamber system, and two additional branches, mixing several "powers" at the same time:

"The Guild" is a Confederation of Artisans. But it's also a trade union. An association of business owners. The national bank/"federal reserve". The Chamber of Commerce and the Registration Office. The Better Business Bureau. The Foreign Office. It also holds all private-public companies.

"The Scientific Council" is the whole court system (from criminal cases to simple arbitration/moderation). It also does all the accusations bit. It's the police. It's the Supreme Court as well.

"The Representative Assembly" is both Parliament and Government

I think that this shows that Neualtenburg is really a "minimalist government" with few "institutions" in government, so for me it's only natural that there is a big overlap.

---

Regarding the "fear" that Kevn has exhibited, we are actually talking about philosophy again. The RA can pass legislation at its whim. "Someone" (in our current case, the SC) has currently the task to validate that legislation. On bi-cameral systems, or systems with multiple powers, the validation would be made by other organs. In Neualtenburg, it's the very same organ that interprets laws that also verifies that these laws are not in violation of the founding documents — and it has the power to refuse laws that are not complying.

In an "ideal" government system with multiple bodies, this power would be, say, in the hands of the Head of State. So the RA would pass a law, it would go to the Head of State, and the Head of State would request a validity compliance statement from the "SC". If the SC had pronounced the law to be unconstitutional, the Head of State would veto it; if the SC would say it's clear to go, the Head of State would have no choice but to promulgate the law. This is more in tune with other RL governmental systems.

In Neualtenburg, there was originally the "fear" that the "Head of State" would be seen as "the person running the project" — no matter how little its power would have been. So the notion of having a "Head of State" was completely disregarded, although some might remember that I've advocated the right to campaign for a Constitutional Monarchy in the future, when Neualtenburg was more stable politically and financially

So, bypassing the artificiality of a "Head of State", what we needed at that time was a mechanism that:
- provided advice on the constitutionality of laws
- enforced the strict adherence to the Constitution by following that advice

At that time, it made sense that the same branch of Government had both powers. What this whole discussion is about is if both powers should be held by the same branch or not. I'd love to say that they should be split by two different branches, but we don't have enough branches for that!

I'll follow Dianne's and Claude's reasoning. Let's have "difficult-to-make" Constitutional changes, and a way to check the powers of enforcement of the SC in case of abuse — while making this "checking" also not prone to abuse. The notion that constitutional amendments will never affect the current RA in office is something that I'm rather fond of, as well as the idea that there will be just "one constitutional revision per term", which is similar to what some countries actually define constitutionally.

I wasn't clear there perhaps.

I meant on the subject of this proposed amendment I don't believe that any change is necessary or at least that any change that has been proposed that I have read is necessary.

The comment about the speed of change overall is a general one and refers to the entire RA program, but I don't necessarily disagree (nor have I voted against), any individual changes so far.

I suppose that was more of an emotional remark on my part. I just feel that in general there is a belief that we have to rewrite the constitution, do it now, and do it fast. I don't agree that things are so screwed up that it has to be done now or fast I suppose. I like to do everything slowly, but government and constitutional change should be especially so IMO.

I much prefer going through the documents as they now stand and taking out the obvious flaws, redundancies and misuses of the english language before we tackle changing the basic structure of the government itself. There are many many flaws in these documents that I pointed out myself before but now that I am in the position of being asked to protect them and interpret their meaning I see that there is room for a little thought before we go tearing them up or completely rewriting them, especially on such a basic level, especially in the absence of any compelling crisis.

If I am honest with myself I must also say that one of the attractive things to me about the Neualtenburg Government is that it is *not* just a carbon copy of the American or other RL governments. It is an attempt to do things differently.

This is possibly just my bias as a non-American, but to me it often seems lately like some people just want to change Neualtenburg until it closely approximates the American model of government as if that was some kind of "gold standard" that we should all strive towards.

Not only is such a program kind of wrong-headed in my view, but it certainly takes all the fun out of it.

I think as far as the proposal goes and relevant to the intent of it, it provides adequate safeguards if the numbers were changed as I suggested. I am not convinced it is necessary as a proposal at all, but I don't think it could hurt so I am not fervently against it either.

I don't agree that you have come up with a realistic, workable scenario for the overthrow of the current government however. I find it a bit "out there" in terms of probabilities and I think you have presented it in a way that makes it seem more likely than it actually is.

The part about where I said these shadowy coup figures would be the majority and therefore "no fault" (or words to that effect), was a response to Claude's comment about these new citizens being the majority of the population. If the majority of the population takes the majority of the seats in two consecutive elections and then further gets a large 60% majority of the population to agree to changing the constitution I just see that as their right.

I am thinking here that the 60% figure applies to 60% of the population, not 60% of those voting. I didn't realise that the statistical scenario you laid out was what was being suggested.

If the bill is worded such that 60% of the voting population is all that is required I would vote against it as unconstitutional or possibly leading to an unconstitutional situation. If the entire purpose of taking it to the people by making a referendum is to get the peoples voice on the matter then clearly we should avoid a situation where 34% of the population can sway the vote.

Bravo, Dianne, I subscribe your words entirely

I believe - and my memory may be faulty here, so no yelling if the record shows otherwise - that I suggested 60% of the population. If Claude's bill implies otherwise, I certainly think it should be population, not those voting.

Since, drama aside, the idea is to make altering the Constitution willy-nilly a difficult task without having to rely on a theoretically all-knowing and all-wise SC.

Dianne, those past two posts were eminently SC worthy. Bravo!

In regards to the 60% ratio, I would say that is way too low, in that any unpopular minority that occupies less than 40% of the population could find themselves suffering at the hands of discriminatory modifications to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For instance, the homosexual population in any society is approximately 10%. If a bill were drafted banning homosexual marriage in N'burg, how hard would it be for a hostile majority (90%) to override the SC veto? What about legislation that states that the government recognizes the "Christian God" as the one true god? Use your imagination.

The point is, that it doesn't matter what the majority wants if what the majority wants violates the founding documents. There should be no RA override on basic fundamental human rights and divisions of power in the city. Period.

~Ulrika~

Ulrika is essentially arguing for a position laid out in the following court case (India)

Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala, (1973) 4 SCC 225: AIR 1973 SC 1461.

In which the Indian Supreme Court held that the parliament's power to amend the constitution did not extend to altering its 'basic structure'.The RL precedent is an interesting read.

Let me try to assert once again that I do not personally view the referendum as an end in itself, although I believe some do. In putting all these issues on the table I sought two things.

1) A clarification of how a tyrannical SC might be checked. Several have pointed out that the SC has only negative power. Nevertheless, the SC is made up of humans just like the populace and the RA. My question was "If an SC were to use the broad interpretive powers granted to it to declare unconstitutional anything the majority of the SC didn't like, what could the rest of us do?"

I believe the Dean's interpretation of the provisions regarding impeachment of SC members addresses that issue with the caveats I've already mentioned.

2) a way to make it harder to amend the constitution. At the moment, four RA members and two SC members can make sweeping changes. How can we place a check, outside of these two bodies, on the amendment process? Were we a federal system, the legislative authorities of constituent units could be used. Since we're not, the citizenry was suggested as a possibility.

If we add a referendum to the process without any other change, the RA is significantly weakened. It is already not especially powerful, yet is the only truly democratic institution in the government.

Claude's last post explains a little further some of the rationale for the original amendment. The two underlying issues identified deserve full consideration.

1) How to check the power of a tyrannical SC? I need to make the (by now, ritualistic) point that an unreasonable SC is a far less scary proposition than an unreasonable activist RA backed up by the majority of the populace! But, the constitution does appear to give the RA and Guild the power to impeach the SC successfully as Gwyn has outlined. I'm not sure the process is entirely as you would wish it to be though. It sounded like you would have to exploit a loophole to carry out the process which is not entirely satisfactory. Perhaps this consideration needs further thought?

2) Making it harder to amend the constitution. Can I be cheeky and (as a non-citizen) make a counter-proposal? How about the following process:
*RA passes constitutional amendment (by 2/3 majority)
*SC decides if the amendment is constitutional or not (i.e. is it in keeping with the spirit of the founding documents, does it threaten basic rights etc.)
*if the SC agrees the amendment is constitutional it then goes to a referendum. If the SC judges that it is not, it falls (as at present).

With this method the SC retains it's role as defender and interpreter of the constitution and founding documents and minority rights can be protected. The method also brings the citizenry of Neualtenburg into the process for ratification of constitutional amendments. It would provide a defence for the scenario you outline where a like-minded RA and SC could rush through constitutional changes without popular support.

While the scenario of an "unreasonable activist" RA is at best a hypothetical right now, in the short history of nburg, I believe we alread have *had* (in my opinion) a tyrannical SC. So in addition to your question of "what's the worst that could happen?" We in Neualtenburg must also consider "what is most likely to happen?"

Perhaps it was an oversight for us to *not* impeach Ulrika when we had the chance, but this further underscores how people are unwilling to use the crude tool of impeachment when it comes to the SC (cue Aliasi's comment about cutting off limbs, etc.).

Between the hypothetical threat of an tyrannical RA (which *does* have to go through all those roadblocks) and the very real threat of a tyrranical SC (with apologies to Gwyn and the rest of the SC), I believe we must deal with the real one.

Ironically, *I* was was the biggest proponent of impeaching Ulrika when the rest of Neualtenburg was running around with their hair on fire over the infamous "Bible Thread".

Though she is my friend I saw the wisdom of Impeachment even then, as opposed to verbal abuse on the forums. At least Impeachment was within the Law of the Land.

I recall those days of impending impeachment. The religious were offended by tongue-in-cheek talk of bible destruction and Stepford citizens were worried about bad PR in the forums. The described "tyranny" was nothing more than unpopular speech, something that is difficult to hear but not actually an illegal act. Interestingly, unpopular speech is something which the SC exists to protect and an impeachment should only occur if a city member has committed a crime, not if they're engaging in unpopular speech.

This was my first realization that the city wasn't operating through its government but was instead operating as a direct democracy. It tends to happen during times of strife.

Because persecution in SL exists mainly because of language, if I were rewriting the Constitution, I'd include a free-speech clause which forbids dismissal of officials or citizens engaging in unpopular speech. (Ulrika scribbles in her notebook.)

~Ulrika~

Don't mistake me. I would have fought against you being removed from Office, but the correct procedure would have been to have Impeachment Hearings as opposed to the onslaught of nasty comments and calls for your head on a platter.

It was my hope at the time that hearings would have exposed this very issue as the farce it was, and BECAUSE it was never officially addressed the City still suffers from this unresolved issue to this day.

Yes! It would have been much preferable from my standpoint and individuals would have then been operating through the government instead of outside of it on a witch hunt. Both you points are spot on.

~Ulrika~

I had to repost this again, sorry. It's an important point that I'm hoping to get a comment on.

In regards to the 60% ratio, I would say that is way too low, in that any unpopular minority that occupies less than 40% of the population could find themselves suffering at the hands of discriminatory modifications to the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

For instance, the homosexual population in any society is approximately 10%. If a bill were drafted banning homosexual marriage in N'burg, how hard would it be for a hostile majority (90%) to override the SC veto? What about legislation that states that the government recognizes the "Christian God" as the one true god? Use your imagination.

The point is, that it doesn't matter what the majority wants if what the majority wants violates the founding documents. There should be no RA override on basic fundamental human rights and divisions of power in the city. Period.

~Ulrika~

Two things.

1) Your concern for minority rights is admirable. However:

a) If you are going to have a democracy of any kind, you must at some point trust that people will do the right thing. If you don't, then you shouldn't bother with democracy.

b)When the question of minority rights arises, there is always the question of which minorities? There is general agreement to protect some (ethnic, etc.) minorities. Shall we protect minorities who advocate the installation of Ulrika as Queen for Life ? Shall we protect minorities who advocate the use of replicating objects to undermine the sims of less enlightened governments?

We speak of being tolerant. Shall we then tolerate intolerance, flawed logic, bigotry?


2) The referendum was one proposal to answer two questions in post #61 in this thread. My goal is to find answers to those questions. What are your answers?

The grounds for impeachment that I was about to push at that time (but ultimately decided not to) was not your unpopular speech, Ulrika. It was your stifling of my right to free speech. You deleted my tongue-in-cheek talk of Neualtenburg destruction, and locked a thread which merely *discussed* that deletion, if I remember correctly.

Here is a case where proposing a constitutional amendment to move moderation of the forums from the SC to the Guild might have been better than impeachment, actually.

*shrug* I've said all I've had to say on that particular issue here:
/103/47/69628/1.html

The point I am trying to make is that it wasn't simply a case of the SC making unpopular speech.

The founding documents must EVOLVE to keep up with an ever changing world. Life in SL changes faster than RL. Why is it you think these documents are so sacred? Is it because you wrote it? Why do you think you know better than the majority of N'burg residents?

Your statement is false. One can engage in democratic processes even if one doesn't trust that others will do the right thing.

This is a poor example as it violates the structure of the Constitution. However, with your amendment override, it will be technically possible to do something like installing a Queen for life.

This is a poor example as it violates Linden law and thus N'burg law.

This is another poor example. You selectively choose what you think are unpopular minorities as part of a rhetorical argument but one could simply pick popular minorities to counter that rhetorical argument, such as being tolerant of those who are Buddhist or Jewish.

Claude, I don't think you're qualified to amend the Constitution. You lack a fundamental understanding of political science and have questionable analytical skills. You should recognize your limitations and seek an area in government in which you can excel. If you insist on focusing on the amendments, you should at least spend some time putting these to paper, thinking them over with a group of people, and presenting them when complete to the city. I would like to recommend wikipedia as a great place to learn about constitutional law and government.

~Ulrika~

The examples in 1) were intentionally exaggerated for clarity's sake.

I notice that you once again made no attempt to answer the fundamental questions at the heart of the whole issue presented in post #61 of this thread. Why not?

This is shaping up into a good debate (if a little bad-tempered at times!) Do you guys always sort things out this way?



Then I'd have to ask "Why you didn't use the constitutional tools available to deal with the issue?"

If the issue is the power of the SC to stifle free speech on the forums by locking or deleting threads, why not tackle that head on rather than propose a solution that leads to a worse outcome and which does nothing to alter the SCs powers over forum moderation?



I would love to trust that the majority will do the right thing.. but history shows that they often do the wrong thing! And by wrong I mean "Infringe on others' human rights because they are a minority". The majority thought it was okay to burn witches at the stake in the Middle Ages; the majority thought that trading people as slaves was acceptable; the majority of men thought it was okay for women to be denied the vote for most of the history of democratic politics. I guess the majority of parents in some parts of the UK would like lesbians and gay men banned from the teaching profession. There needs to be a defence against the abuse of a minority by the majority. Where is it in these proposals? An unpopular minority could be as small as 10%, 1% or even one individual. How are you going to ensure that their rights will not be infringed?

I think the question of how to deal with the threat of a 'tyrannical SC' has been answered - impeach them!

The unanswered questions in this thread relate to minority rights.

I note that no one has yet commented on the proposal I outlined in post 62. Why not hold a referendum after the SC has determined that a constitutional amendment is constitutional, thereby retaining the SCs role as defender of the principles embodied in the constitution and founding documents and simultaneously raising the bar for amendment of the constitution?