ideas-robertsRules

[more on rr]

This page is for discussing what sort of procedure AnewGo? Congress will follow. As I indicated on that page, I feel that we need some sort of formal process.

I think we should start with RobertsRules? of Order Revised, 1915 (public domain) version, and then simplify and modify the process to accomodate our needs. Why?

How would some form of RobertsRules? help us?

      Specifying what is the actual, adopted Law. (as opposed to what is merely discussion)
    *

      Keeping track of proposed Resolutions. (everyone skimming every page in RecentChanges is too much to ask; we should have a small, manageable list of Motions under consideration at any one time)
    *

      Providing default procedures for various things we haven't thought of (like what to do if we have to suppress a member)
    *

      Ensuring that Resolutions are given a proper airing before being considered Law.

-- BayleShanks What to change?

First, many things should be simplified.

Second, one of the primary concerns of Robert's Rules is to properly linearize debate (ensuring that only one person is speaking, and arranging for who that person is; ensuring that there is only one motion immediately under consideration). This is not necessary in our environment; one of the strengths of an online community is that multiple people can speak at once about multiple topics. So, we will be able to gut a lot of the Rules. However, I feel that we still need to have a notion of which motions are under consideration, even if that number is more than 1. This is to keep our workload in keeping up with the Congress manageable. -- BayleShanks Voting

We can discuss to what degree we want voting. My view is that consensus is not realistic for a body the size of a nation. It only takes 0.001% of citizens to decide that they would like to make an artistic point by halting all Congressional business for a year.

Consensus can be approximated by making the threshold of a vote high. For instance, if we required 99% of citizens voting on a proposal to be in favor of it, that's almost consensus. I would recommend a lower threshold; say, 80% (4 out of 5).

I think there are better systems of voting out there than first past the post, majority vote, however, I think that system is a good one to start with; we can switch later.

Finally, even if we want consensus, there might be value in making final decisions by consensus but ALSO having voting, "for informational purposes". That is, measures (or at least motions, like motion to table) could be passed by majority vote, but there could be a procedure for even a single citizen to say, "I veto that vote" afterwards. In other words, we could assume that everyone consents to what the votes say unless they say otherwise.

I feel that when we finalize a Constitution, though, that document should be by consensus (that is, people only sign it if they agree to it). But discussion and creation of it could involve voting (or, alterating stages of voting and consensus).

-- BayleShanks

--

[precedent]

Actually, I think the idea of Precedent causes a good deal of trouble. I feel that one of the main reasons for the complexity of the U.S. legal system is Precedent. I feel that it is a problem that a citizen cannot understand the law to which they are bound just by reading the Laws. Even if you knew court procedure and law, you would need a lawyer in court, for you would need someone to research precedent.

Or, to put it another way, Precedent sort of incorporates past court decisions into the Law. It therefore makes even a small body of law unmanageably huge.

My preference would be a system in which courts would decide the case at hand, and then if there is some issue which needs to be settled once and for all, they should have a mechanism to force the legislature to consider the issue and to write some sort of resolution into the Law.

The downside to this is that the decisions of various courts may become less consistent; because various similar cases might be decided differently if the principals of the decisions were not be deemed important enough to get written into the Law.

I see no problem with this, however. If a normal citizen cannot determine how a case should be decided by reading the Law, why should it matter to them if such a situation is resolved differently at different times? For the use of Law to a citizen is to decide whether an action they are contemplating is legal; and they should decide this by consulting the Law, not by consulting past court cases.

(I would be willing to accept precedent anyway for AnewGo? because it seems to be popular. But those are my views.)

[more AnewGo?]

My feeling is that the Declaration of Existence should be as non-contentious as possible. This does not mean that AnewGo? will never address other issues; just that it will address them later on, in the Constitution or in as an Act of Congress. I agree with StarPilot? and PhillipBannigan? here. For me, this springs from the concept of MinimalLaw?. I feel that the most fundamental laws should be simple, short, and agreed to by almost everyone.

An Act of Congress will not be devoid of force just because it is not enshrined in the Declaration or Constitution. For instance, as long as they are in force, Acts of Congress will be Laws as much as the Constitution is -- the only difference is that it will be harder to change or to nullify the Constitution than it will be to modify Acts of Congress. And, it will be possible to amend even the Constitution. So, for me, the question of where to put such things now is mainly a question of what makes good procedure. To me, the answer is:

1) Decouple issues as much as possible. (I do recognize the possibility that agreement on the need for the very existence of AnewGo? might be coupled to ideals, though).

2) One of the main functions of fundamental documents is to set up a basic procedure for resolving later substantive issues.

I DO mostly agree with the unsigned statement "My greatest fear for the future of humanity is fear of the TyrannyOfTheMajority?. Without the principles of freedom and self-determination we become slaves to mob rule". One of the most important features of our fundamental documents will be to properly restrain the government of AnewGo?. Before I sign our Constitution, I will insist that it contains some sort of "Bill of Rights". However, I feel that this will be a very complicated issue that will take a long time to resolve -- I think we can agree on the Declaration now if we leave these issues for later.

I am not even sure yet that the value of AnewGo? will be the principals it represents -- the value might be in the process which will give more of a voice to "the people" of the world. But maybe it will turn out to be the principals. I agree with JimScarver? that "If anewgo is purposeless it has no businees monkeying in world affairs". But I think a better system of government is a high purpose in and of itself.

So, here is how I see our evolution:

• Declaration of Existence. A non-divisive document that will not dissuade anyone from joining us unless they dislike the very idea of a new distributed nation. At this point, we will consider ourselves a nation that formally exists, even if our legal process is still a bit murky.
• Agreement on initial formal procedures for our Congress. We start discussing what we want our Laws, principals, and Constitution to be in classic wiki style, and then various resolutions become more stabilized by a Resolution of the Congress. Of course, people are still free to discuss alternate forms wiki-style, but at least everyone will know what the current Law is which they are comparing their ideas against. Acts of Congress will be binding laws even though we don't have a Constitution yet (some nations never adopt a Constitution, after all).
• Years pass before we agree on a Constitution. This will give us time to consult various Constitutions around the world as well as legal experts. This will also give us time to get enough members that we know that what we decide on is something that a lot of people like, rather than something that 5 of us like.
• The Constitution will be able to be amended in the future. Constitution can include a new Declaration which will supercede our original one, if we find the need to do so. I.e. we shouldn't worry that any of our documents will be so final that they are unchangable.

-- BayleShanks

---

[i wrote this for AnewGo?:]

This page is for discussing what sort of procedure AnewGo? Congress will follow. As I indicated on that page, I feel that we need some sort of formal process.

I think we should start with Robert's Rules of Order Revised, 1915 (public domain) version, and then simplify and modify the process to accomodate our needs.

The Rules of Order can be found at:

httphttp:www.constitution.org/rror/rror--00.htm

We can discuss to what degree we want voting. My view is that consensus is not realistic for a body the size of a nation. It only takes 0.001% of citizens to decide that they would like to make an artistic point by halting all Congressional business for a year.

Consensus can be approximated by making the threshold of a vote high. For instance, if we required 99% of citizens voting on a proposal to be in favor of it, that's almost consensus. I would recommend a lower threshold; say, 80% (4 out of 5).

I think there are better systems of voting out there than first past the post, majority vote, however, I think that system is a good one to start with; we can switch later.

Finally, even if we want consensus, there might be value in making final decisions by consensus but ALSO having voting, "for informational purposes". That is, measures (or at least motions, like motion to table) could be passed by majority vote, but there could be a procedure for even a single citizen to say, "I veto that vote" afterwards. In other words, we could assume that everyone consents to what the votes say unless they say otherwise.

I feel that when we finalize a Constitution, though, that document should be by consensus (that is, people only sign it if they agree to it). But discussion and creation of it could involve voting (or, alterating stages of voting and consensus).

---