Salvete, quirites.
I just thought I'd come with my opinion on some matters regarding this.
First, let me state that I support the current proposal, and WILL vote
for it in the upcoming comitia. It will, I believe, fix our most urgent
problems, in time for the elections, for which it is badly needed.
Now, to how I think matters could be arranged.
The only part of the discussion I'm addressing, is the case when you're
against all candidates for a position, and that's the problem I've tried
to come up with a "solution" for. It's probably historically incorrect,
as well as unacceptable for most citizens, but in my opinion a viable
"middle way".
I'd like to divide votes into two categories:
1. Yes-or-no votes (Such as supporting or rejecting a proposed lex)
2. Multiple-choice votes (Such as deciding between different candidates
for a given position)
For the first type of elections, I don't think the "abstineo"-choice
should count as standing in opposition to the proposal, since clearly
you're not. You're only stating that you're not sufficiently familiar
with the issue/lex to have an opinion. Since a "no"-vote in no way
dishonors the promulgator of the issue/lex, I don't feel the need for a
"thank you, but no thanks"-alternative. This is exactly as matters
stand, or will stand, once the current proposal is passed.
For the second type of election, I would like a "none of the
above"-alternative, stating your opposition to all existing
alternatives. For instance, if you don't believe either of the two
censorial candidates are fit for the position, you request another
candidate to step forward by voting "none of the above". Should the
"none of the above"-alternative "win" the election, a new election with
new candidates should be held. This, since a majority has shown their
disapproval of all current candidates.
This is just one way to take care of this. I don't "get" the whole
discussion on how saying "abstineo" is supposed to be a more eloquent
way of saying "no", but if that's so, I'd like a fourth option in such
elections, so I can REALLY abstain, without saying yes OR no. And this
would be complicating matters overmuch, since the "abstineo" and
"antiquo" would be, for all accounts, the same, thus simply confusing
voters. (Me included. Isn't "abstineo" to just...not vote?)
Here comes the ego part...should anyone actually LIKE this idea, perish
the thought, I'd be more than happy to formulate it into a form suitable
for a lex/edict/amendment. Say, to be presented to the people, once the
december elections are settled? (This is just me trying to get a "piece
of the action", so I'll be able to better understand the legislative
process of Nova Roma. It seems fun. ;) )
Final part...again, I support the current proposal. It is an efficient
and easily feasible way of fixing our current problems, and thus will
get an "Uti Rogas" from me in the election. However, I am not saying it
is perfect, and am thus providing this humble suggestion.
All opinions herein are my own, and none of them are intended to cause
anyone grief. Please, if you feel insulted, contact me in person, and
I'll post a public apology. I am not looking for trouble, but it still
seems to find me more often than I'd like.
Valete, Titus Octavius Pius.
+----------------------------------------------------+
| -----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK----- |
| Version: 3.1 |
| GCS d- s:++> a-- C++>$ ULS++ P+ L++ E- W++(--) N |
| o-- K- w--- !O M-- V-- PS->$ PE- Y+ PGP- t+@ 5- X- |
| R+++>$ !tv- b+++>$ DI++++ D+ G e h! !r-->r+++ !y- |
| ------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------ |
+----------------------------------------------------+
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
|
Salvete Quirites; et salve, Limitane.
--- Michel Loos <loos@--------> wrote:
> On Sat, 2001-11-17 at 02:53, Michael Loughlin wrote:
> > Ave,
> > On this matter I agree with Manius Villius
> > Limitanus of voting against this law. I do not take
> > the stance as Limitanus in reference to the democracy
> > matter. My reasoning for opposing this law is its
> > lack of showing a true majority. In the quote cited
> > by Limitanus I find that a simple majority is not
> > simply 50%+1. If a law passes by a vote of 51-49 that
> > does not show that a true majority supported it but
> > that it barely has favor and hence is weak. That +1
> > should be increased to a greater number to show that
> > majority. If that one segment were changed I would
> > not have opposition but rather favor the law.
> > However, it does not from my point of view create a
> > majority.
>
> Your version seems also fine to me. Another modern democracy practice
> is
> the 2/3 majority of votes discounting the "none of the aboves", this
> to
> is democratic.
>
> Manius Villius Limitanus
I have been following this discussion for some time, and I have read
this argument of yours some times before. I would like to make you a
few questions, if you don't mind, Limitane.
I live in a modern democratic macronation, Spain. In Spain there have
been public referenda a few times, in addition to normal parliamentary
legislation. I have to say that neither in the Spanish parliament nor
in referenda a majority of 2/3 is required. A simple majority of 50%+1
of valid votes (discounting both abstentions *and* blank votes) is
sufficient.
I am also familiar with the political practices of other Western
European states, as well as of the European Union institutions, and I
have to say that in *all* of them (as far as I know) "majority" is
understood as 50%+1 votes (the only exception that comes to mind is the
European Council, which has some special rules). I also think that this
is common practice in many democracies outside Europe.
Where is that 2/3 majority used, Limitane? I in fact would feel pretty
discriminated with such a system. I would not consider it very
democratic.
=====
Bene Valete in Pace Deorum!
Gnaeus Salix Astur.
Legatus Externis Rebus Provinciae Hispaniae
Triumvir Academiae Novae Romae in Thule
Scriba ad Res Externas Academiae Novae Romae in Thule.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals
http://personals.yahoo.com
|
