The "VI Amendment" Did Not Pass!!!!

[12th Doctor]

Logically, we needed to approve the structure of the Constitution before we could approve amendements, correct?  If that is the case, then the VI Amendment didn't pass because we ALREADY approved the motion that any amendment to the Constitution had to get 2/3 of the vote.  This amendment failed to do so.  Thus, it didn't pass.

[MAS117]

Whats the VI amendment on

[12th Doctor]

Whats the VI amendment on

The amendment to add preferential voting ot the constitution.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

Logically, we needed to approve the structure of the Constitution before we could approve amendements, correct?  If that is the case, then the VI Amendment didn't pass because we ALREADY approved the motion that any amendment to the Constitution had to get 2/3 of the vote.  This amendment failed to do so.  Thus, it didn't pass.

The Constitution says that Amendments must be passed by "a majority vote of the public" and a "two-thirds vote from the Senate".  So I guess none of the Amendments have passed yet, because we don't have a Senate.

But wait....without Amendment IV, we don't have a districts or regions maps, so we can't elect a Senate in the first place.  I guess those amendments will never pass!

[Fritz]

I was just going to point this out, but NickG beat me to it.  There are no amendments.

[Demrepdan]

Logically, we needed to approve the structure of the Constitution before we could approve amendements, correct?  If that is the case, then the VI Amendment didn't pass because we ALREADY approved the motion that any amendment to the Constitution had to get 2/3 of the vote.  This amendment failed to do so.  Thus, it didn't pass.

The Constitution says that Amendments must be passed by "a majority vote of the public" and a "two-thirds vote from the Senate".  So I guess none of the Amendments have passed yet, because we don't have a Senate.

But wait....without Amendment IV, we don't have a districts or regions maps, so we can't elect a Senate in the first place.  I guess those amendments will never pass!

Amendments 1-5 are the Bill of Rights....and are put in to mimic the Bill of Rights in the U.S. Constitution......actually....these amendments DID pass.....when the people voted for the constitution we have (which is not yet finished).......because those 5 were included WITH the constitution.

[Fritz]

And the 6th Amendment, Demrepdan?  You didn't mention that one.

[Demrepdan]

And the 6th Amendment, Demrepdan?  You didn't mention that one.

That's right....because it's not in there.......I didn't write it in....and there is NO NEED for 6th amendment people!!! What's wrong with all of you!!!

We voted on Preferential voting....(and I believe it LOST).......and if it would have WON....(by a majority)....I would have insterted into the MAIN TEXT of the constitution. THERE's NO NEED TO MAKE A DAMN AMENDMENT......WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUTION YET!

The only amendments there are.......is 1-5.....and those were put in there more for "fun".....because I doubt the Senate would have passed the First Amendment....there's no need to.....

[Fritz]

So it didn't pass then, rght?

[Demrepdan]

So it didn't pass then, rght?

As far as I am aware....no it did not....

[Fritz]

Well, this is an interesting turn of events.  I asked the President at the Press Conference about this.  He responded that this a "technicality" that would be redressed shortly; that he had been in contact with YOU and that you would be providing the text forthwith.  Are you saying you and the President had no such conversation?

[Beet]

This is terrible...

Here is the text of the message

Vote is open 72 hours until March 31st, 6:00 am Eastern Time.
All registered voters may vote (see list in register! thread)

Please vote
-yes or no on Demrepdan's First Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Second Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Third Amendment
-yes or no on Demrepdan's Fifth Amendment

On Demrepdan's Fourth Amendment, please indicate which Regions and Districts Plan you prefer:
a) the one currently in the draft
b) the one currently in the draft, but with Missouri and Nebraska reversed in the Regions plan
c) Regions plan E and Districts plan D from the Regions Vote thread (I'll dig it up in a second)
d) against all
This vote will be held by Australian-style preferential voting.

Finally, please vote whether there should be a sixth amendment providing for Australian-style preferential voting or no.

http://www.geocities.com/demrepdan/forum-constitution2

Oh, PS: I know I don't have any legal authority to set this up. But if nobody does it, I figure we'll never have a constitution. And time is running out fast.

consequently, approximately 20-25 people, including supersoulty and the forum secretary of affairs, voted on the constitution and each amendment, including the 6th. All without a peep about how the vote is supposedly illegitimate. And then after the result of a close vote goes one way, those who were unhappy wit the result try to say the result should be thrown out. First they try to say it's unclear what the 6th amendment is, even though they voted on it and argued it. Second they try to say you need a 2/3 senate majority, nevermind that we don't have a senate yet. Honestly I'm not going to pretend that if the powers at be don't want this amendment, it is going to happen. But I just think it's really, really terrible that we had a whole 72 hour vote with not a single freaking complaint and now it's raining cats and dogs.

[Fritz]

I am just trying to get to the bottom of this, and have been since yesterday.  I wasn't able to vote, being below the post requirement at the time the voting was taking place.  If something was voted upon, legitimately, that is fine and I have no argument.

Referring to the text you have quoted, it says: "Finally, please vote whether there should be a sixth amendment providing for Australian-style preferential voting or no."  The way the statement is phrased, the vote was on whether there SHOULD BE an amendment, not on the amendment itself.

Demrepdan appears to concur, from his earlier post herein.  I am still wondering about the conversation our President claims to have had with Demrepdan.  What Demrepdan said in this thread contradicts what the President told me at the Press Conference.

As for "preferential voting", I really don't have an opinion on the matter yet, because I don't really know what it is!  After much searching, I finally found the thread where the issue was first discussed.  The title of the thread is something like "What system should we have?"  It was not obvious from the thread title that this was the thread on preferential voting.  The concept was not really explained at any length in that thread, eitiher.  Not being from Australia, I am not familiar with Australian voting procedures.  I have a general understanding that it has something to do with including a second and third choice in votes.  No one, anywhere on this board (and I have looked), has explained exactly how this works.

I've ranted enough for now.  Bottom line- I am really enjoying being a part of this forum, and I just want to understand what the rules are.  There appears to be some disagreement regarding this.

[Emsworth]

There never should have been a vote on preferential voting in the first place. Preferential voting was approved earlier in a poll, which some felt was informal. However, due to the calls of members, the idea was put up for a vote; now, rather unfortunately, vociferous objections undergo voicing, permitting one to reach the conclusion that such individuals will try to undermine the vote - which was not earlier objected to - in order to defeat the proposal. Mind you, I was opposed to the preferential vote, but definitly it was passed by the voters, and it should now be included.

[Beet]

Additionally I would like to say that I would have voted for this amendment no matter what the forum party structure looked like. I know I can't prove the above statement, but I have made it very clear that I think pv is a more fair system for the US in real life in previous posts that *far* outdate this vote thread. It is not pushing an agenda to have this system any more than those pushing against this are pushing an agenda. Because, as the president said, it is the system that means the winner will be the one who best reflects the opinions of the voters.

JLD- Sorry, I was just pretty shocked that after a few posts the results of a forum vote would be nullified.

[Fritz]

Beet- thanks.

[Fmr. Gov. NickG]

And the 6th Amendment, Demrepdan?  You didn't mention that one.

That's right....because it's not in there.......I didn't write it in....and there is NO NEED for 6th amendment people!!! What's wrong with all of you!!!

We voted on Preferential voting....(and I believe it LOST).......and if it would have WON....(by a majority)....I would have insterted into the MAIN TEXT of the constitution. THERE's NO NEED TO MAKE A DAMN AMENDMENT......WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A CONSTITUTION YET!

The only amendments there are.......is 1-5.....and those were put in there more for "fun".....because I doubt the Senate would have passed the First Amendment....there's no need to.....

When did Preferential Voting lose?  It was approved both times we put it to a vote.  Whether these votes were official or not, it is clear that more people want it than don't.

If ANYONE who voted FOR preferential voting would like to withdraw that vote because they thought the wording was unclear, we should hear them out.   But I've only heard objections from people who either voted against it or weren't registered members at the time of the vote.

[Fritz]

[If ANYONE who voted FOR preferential voting would like to withdraw that vote because they thought the wording was unclear, we should hear them out.

Okay, fine, agreed.  That sentiment echoes another thing the President said to me at the Press Conference.

Obviously that cannot happen until a written version is produced.  And the person who is supposed to be doing the writing has just expressed his opinion that it doesn't need to be written.

I never objected to the concept of the amendment itself, per se.  All I have objected to is the lack of proper procedure- voting on an amendment that hasn't been written.  If you guys are seriously going to play this game, you need to do it right.

[Beet]

[If ANYONE who voted FOR preferential voting would like to withdraw that vote because they thought the wording was unclear, we should hear them out.

Okay, fine, agreed.

This is reasonable. The idea of preferential voting has been approved in the vote, it is only the exact wording that is not available yet. I think this was because it wasn't thought necessary, and indeed during the vote there were no questions as to the meaning. However, obviously the amendment with the rules of australian-style preferential voting will should be written eventually exactly as it would appear in the constitution... so that way if it is not written the way that the people who voted for it believed it would work, they can say so. Lets wait until the executive office speaks on this.

[12th Doctor]

There never should have been a vote on preferential voting in the first place. Preferential voting was approved earlier in a poll, which some felt was informal. However, due to the calls of members, the idea was put up for a vote; now, rather unfortunately, vociferous objections undergo voicing, permitting one to reach the conclusion that such individuals will try to undermine the vote - which was not earlier objected to - in order to defeat the proposal. Mind you, I was opposed to the preferential vote, but definitly it was passed by the voters, and it should now be included.

You can't approve of something in a poll.  This was never meant to be part of the Constitution.  You added because it suited your purposes.  I think that this is a load of horse-sh**t.  You can't just sneek an amendement in because you want to.

[Platypus]

The members have voted for preferential voting twice now-the first time in a poll (that I was ther first to say was not formal enoguh and should be put into a stronger format)

and the second time in about as formal a context as possible, with the ratification.

The majority of people voted for it, and as there is no senate, that requirement is obsolete.

It PASSED, supersoulty.

I didn't like your idea of a two-tier senate, but it passed, so I've accepted it-that's the system.

And so is preferential voting.

[Emsworth]

You can't approve of something in a poll.  This was never meant to be part of the Constitution.  You added because it suited your purposes.  I think that this is a load of horse-sh**t.  You can't just sneek an amendement in because you want to.

I didn't sneak anything anywhere. And the vote was not a "poll", it was a formal vote, as hughento indicated. Preferential voting was passed on the same basis as your district-region plan. Definitely, you cannot claim that you didn't see the vote: the topic was with the title, FINAL RATIFICATION PART 2, which is where you should have voiced any objections.