Join the new world

I allready proposed to remove this during the last Law reform but it was denied then. Great to see you proposing it now. I second your proposal.

DemNL proposing removing something democratic again...

Besides you need to change the constitution for that and we thankfully stopped you doing that previously.

Dear odan,

referendum is in Chapter 2, Constitution in Chapter 1. Guess which Chapter is mentioned in the proposal. Once again, you are trying to manipulate us into "this cannot be changed", while it is not true. It is quite hard to manipulate like this though, when Laws are no longer hidden on Forum though, isn't it 🙂 ? Good that parties like DemNL support the in-game transparency!

Immediately saying I’m a multi...

And any other section that contains it. So the constitution. Since that has that mention, at least it should but CoC’s don’t do their duties lately.

You really interpret the Law in interesting way, you sure you have the right copy? Maybe your copy has the Chapters wrongly numbered, the Constitution is Chapter 1, and I want to modify Chapter 2, the Congress Law.

Also, stop attacking CoC, he is actually doing splendid work with these debates. You should have some respect to his hard work.

tl;dr prouding themselves to blockade rationality by blocking Constitution changes out of pure spite (as the ''real changes'' in other laws were already accepted, as a great majority supports them. In fact every party but I&W. But over the very symbolic Constitution, which mostly includes referrals to other laws, some group of people hijack it all. Real nice!

Why remove something that does not hinder or bother? If it is ever used, the specifics can then be changed to new realities.

Why keep something, that is not used? Referendums make sense in countries where all parties cannot be represented, or in countries with low amount of Congress seats in comparison with amount of candidates. And yet, even these countries do not use it. Netherlands probably belonged to one of these groups back in 2010... but in 2019, that is no longer the case. The game environment adapts, and our laws must adapt as well. Or we will end up stuck in the past like some members of your party, who still recite old Law, even though it has been reformed.

For the same reason Congress removed "Deputy Dictator" rules last time... there was simply no need for them, as Dictatorship mechanic is no longer used. And this is the same case. If we want people to respect the Law and understand it, we need to make sure Law is relevant, and it has important information in it.

Btw. do not even get me started on how your referendum rules are actually bad and easy to misuse... as author of certain Referendum Law myself (https://www.erepublik.com/en/article/-cp-referendum-law-ley-de-refer-ndum-en-es--2610421), I am honestly shocked by naivete of whomever managed to write this one. So take that as reason 5.

I see this is something that you feel strongly about. But it has been there so long in the books with no problems. Why make it a problem now? A referendum is not just 'law', it is also a symbolic gesture toward the citizens of the country that their voice counts outside of election days. If there is no need, do not use. But do not remove a democratic tool that exists in most countries.

If you think the law is naive of ineffective, propose an update and/or improvement on the law.

Nation laws should not limit itself ingame.
With that logic you might aswel scrap government programs, as they are not built into the game but managed outside of the game...

I feel strongly about many sections of the Law, in case you do not know. Mostly because it was (and still partially is) obsolete, and it was one of the main reasons this country was dying during the times of my arrival here. Took a lot of effort from multiple parties and individuals to save it, and the reduction of the Law certainly helped.

"But it has been there so long in the books with no problems."

This is the problem of your party in general. Overprotective reactionarism. Something was written in 2010, which means we cannot touch it, change it, or remove it, because that would be bad. Radical. Undemocratic. The fact game is adapting and laws can be changed is beyond the comprehension. The fact unused sections of law can be removed is heresy. That, in my opinion, is a wrong approach.

(Of course, I really, really hope this is not your case, but I just described majority of your current Congress members with one little exception).

Referendum is 'law' - Chapter II, Article 10. As any other law, it can be modified or removed. It does not have any special status, and nobody clearly intended for it to have one. Otherwise it would be written somewhere. And I doubt your unproven claim that most countries use referendums (or even have referendum laws, for that matter) is correct - I know for a fact none of the country I ever dealt with uses them, and I was Minister of Foreign Affairs for quite some time.

The only reason referendum has not been a problem is because nobody used it for the past 4 years. I guarantee you that if we started using it, it would cause plenty of issues. Last referendums I have seen, both here and in Cuba, harmed the community more than simple Congress voting would ever do.

And I do not understand your in-game out-game metaphore, it seems irrelevant in the context of the proposal or debate... but if you plan to turn this onto some attack against government programs - don't. Government programs and referendum are two totally different things. And only one of them is actually being useful, for that matter 😉 .

I think I clearly state that you can change it. Update it. I just don't like you removing it completely. Whatever happened between you and some party members in the past, don't project on me.
I have always been critical of government changes and been protective of citizens rights.

I also was referring to the referendum being part of countries in general, not just eRep. Not saying that the Brexit is a good thing, but it is a great example of it being used in modern day politics.

I really don't see how removing a democratic tool (written "ex-ludum), expressly giving citizens a voice in certain matters under certain circumstances is helping with in-game activity?

Change is good, if it means improvement. Here I don't see the improvement. What would change by you removing this article, except you writing in a paper afterwards that 'you did a thing'.

What is the gain for eNL citizens?

This is not government change though - if you think so, I need to clarify it - each citizen can request a debate, and I do so as citizen. The only changes government intends to do are connected to update of government programs, as we have announced in articles. These are also in the Law, true, but that is solved in another debate, and as government, we will request our own debates, once we are ready.

Oh, no, no, no, do not bring RL comparisons to eRepublik. RL referendums are even worse than eRepublik ones, because masses can be manipulated easily, while being incapable to decide about complex issues. Which is not problem of this game, as issues here are not that complex, and the "masses" here are tens of people, most of them being in Congress already (just like Netherlands) - so coincidentally, even though I am strongly against referendums in real-life, that is not the case, why I propose to remove them here.

You use noble words like "democratic tool", "in-game activity" "gain for eNL citizens?"... which is easy to do... but can you please show me example from last 3 years, where this democratic tool showed in-game activity and gained our citizens something? You can't, because it did not. You know, a lot of things sound good on the paper - but I am pragmatic person, not an idealist like you. Is this used? No. Does it work? No. Does it help? No. Do others use it? No. Is there some meaningful reason to use it? No. Well, then why do we have it here? Hoarding pages and pages of the Law for the sake of idealism makes no sense to me. I want Law, that is actively used, and that helps people.

The experience of previous years showed quite clear, how much are referendums "important" for the community. Why do you think everything is voted in Congress, and even people, who want to "keep referendum" (and some of them do it purely to oppose me, not even reading the topic of debate 😉 ) never actually ask to use it? Why do you think nobody bothered to reform referendums, even though they are written in such a way they are actually unsuable? Because spoiler... nobody cares. You even managed to enter Orion, our current alliance, without referendum, and that was the only case where I actually imagine referendum having some sense, as joining an alliance is extremely important issue.

TL😉R: I am pragmatist, you are idealist. Hence why we disagree on question of pointless, but beautifully looking law section.

The Referendum has already been simplified recently, allowing in-game voting for example. But realistically, do we ever expect one to happen again, or rather more the question: To have such an active population that Congress does not almost equal population? I loved the Referendum in the past and even made great use of it (because as Janty mentioned, there are big loopholes in it), but we live in 2019. Whilst it doesn't 'hurt' to keep it there as symbolic gesture, it doesn't hurt either to remove it. Would almost say it's a non-issue 😃

The recent template by Chairman ElGorro is essentially a mini-referendum for every debate.. And does a whole lot better job in giving non-CM a voice!

I think it is good to have the option of a referendum. If 35% is not a reasonable quorum, lower the quorum. We might need (or want) a referendum sometime. It doesn't seem like a law that hinders some other action, imho.

We didn't need or want referendum for years. Which does not surprise me, given how poorly it is written in the Law. Plus, the last referendum NL did... people voted "YES" on the issue in referendum, but in the end the final verdict of government was "NO", so it shows, how much is the result of referendum relevant.

I just do not see a reason to keep pointless wall of text in the Law, which we know will never be used by anyone. A wall of text, that is obviously broken, and yet nobody was willing to repair it, despite people claiming to love referendums.

Pragmatism, simple as that 😉 .

Also, question for people like Mael Dunbar, Tim Veltkamp, or Jordic, who claim referendum does not bother or hinder anything, and its cool to leave it:

Your referendum rules currently have no trouble allowing multiaccounts, born solely for the purpose of voting, to participate. It allows people to move in foreigners to influence the vote. The quorum is insanely large, making the methods described above the only way, how it can be actually passed. And I have seen referendums, where these things happened. As you agree with comment, that current state of referendum is good, and it does not hinder anything... do you therefore support methods, that I mentioned above 🙂 ? And if you don't, why haven't you tried to reform referendums in the past years, so the problems I mentioned can be avoided? Is it because... you never actually cared about topic of referendums in your life, and you only care now, when you can "be the hero" and block a Law change?

Seems like you want to keep referendums only out of pure nostalgia without actually caring, how they are implemented, and without thinking about possible abuse or problems of "democratic tool" (which, given the recent surge of multiaccounts, could be expected to happen). This is, in my opinion, incredibly simple and short-sighted. If you want referendums, make sure they are good!!! Or allow me to remove them, as the current version of referendums devalues the institution of referendum more than my proposal to remove it from the Law.

Just think about it for a second 😉 .

"Your referendum rules currently have no trouble allowing multiaccounts, born solely for the purpose of voting, to participate."

Just like in CP, Congress and Party President votes? There is no way to stop that from happening in any vote.

"It allows people to move in foreigners to influence the vote"

Once again, just like any other vote we have going on in this country? or even the game in general.

"The quorum is insanely large"

If you want the threshold changed by all means, 20% or 25% (around the current amount of CP election votes) should be fine.

I like how you defend participation of multi-accounts after the latest scandal of your party. I, for one, would try my best to limit their access in our decision procedures, especially in public ones, like referendums are.

How would you limit their access? Excluding people based on someone's opinion or suspicion of them being a multi can so easily be abused in every way. Also don't somehow twist any of this to say that I support multis, all im saying is that there isn't much we can do against it.

Hence why you never bothered to write tickets against your suspicious fellow party members, I understand.

Anyway, there are methods I have linked above, which can prevent appearance of multi accounts in referendums. Or resurrected accounts solely for the purpose of voting and dying. You only need to have a will to implement them 😉 .

What methods? I might have missed it in all the droning on about the law being old/unused.

I understand you are used to short answers without any diacritics, but I would actually recommend to read my answers once, as they contain a lot of information, which you blame me for not mentioning 😉 .

Read upon the debate, before you engage in it - it helps moving it forward!

By methods you mean the rules set out for Cuba? They will not stop multi accounts from participating in referendums. Only potential new accounts. Also that 14 day window for foreigners is small considering referendums don't happen overnight.

and don't complain when people skim your posts when like 80% of it is saying the law is old and unused, complaining about I&W/odan or saying it is better in Cuba after you got done with it.

Unlike you, I am an author of Referendum Law, I have experience with referendums going horribly wrong, and therefore I know, what problems to focus upon. Besides - wasn't it Mael Dunbar, who wanted to keep referendums here, because "all countries use them"? So do not complain, when I give foreign examples 😉 .

And if you want to debate with someone, it is polite to actually read, what that person wrote, before you start answering to him. Saves a lot of time. But if you rather prefer to spout nonsense about 80%, and blame it on my comments being too long - your choice. Atleast you show some activity, which is positive in comparison with when you ran for CP against me.

[removed]

This seems to be more personal vendetta and advancement of an own agenda then an actual proposal to improve things. The 'reasons' we get from Janty F aren't reasons at all. And Tim Veltkamp has a good point when Janty F keeps being repetitive in what he considers to be arguments.
Apparently you also can't use examples to prove a point, because somhow they don't apply. Or use his own logic against him, because... wel, that wouldn't make sense in Cuba.

"Lets throw away the umbrella. Because I&W has bought it and the sun is shining in Cuba." - Janty F, CP

Personal vendetta against... referendums. Yup, makes sense. In your world.

I have provided several reasons why referendums are obsolete and pointless in this country. I have pointed out problems, which they have, using an example from Referendum Law I have written in the past, from which we can learn another perspective. The fact you ignored that all (instead of using them to create counter-proposal for better referendums, as I would do in your position) and went onto personal attacks aiming at deporting me back in Cuba (not the first time Tim suggests that, he really dislikes me 🙁 ) only shows I hit the nail right on the head. Guess further demonstration will be needed...

Sadly, typical debating behavior I expected to appear, though not from you - it is similar to reactions of your colleagues to previous Law changes, on which I participated in together with other citizens, and which are now universally used without anyone actually complaining about them. Guess making progress will never be easy.

Seeing the passion of certain Congress members and citizens towards the concept of referendum, I have decided to ask for the following:

I ask Congress to allow starting referendum on my proposal. It seems logical to vote about referendums in a referendum, and given the public support, I expect Congress will fulfill the wish of citizens, and allow one to happen 🙂 .

We need to vote on that as Congress. I will allow a vote to be opened on this after at least 24 hours starting on the moment Janty F requested it.

a new debate should be opened for that. hiding it at the end of a other debate like this isn't the correct way to go about it.

I dont see the need for that following the procedures in the Lawbook. So, no.

We had some debating between VN's CM about this and our conclusion and direction for this is as follows:
Removing a referendum option that does not harm anyone does not really make sense in a democracy. It also is a an action not to be used very much and that hasn't been done either. It should only be used for very important matters as at those instances it might be of importance (however still not binding we believe). So to have it in place when needed it would be unwise to remove the option if no alternative is present. However Janty did point out that is has is flaws in it's current form. Mainly the 35% votes needed. Especially as the number of active citizens seems to have even less accuracy over the past few months.

We therefore will not support the removal yet. Only if an alternative is officially in place.
In the meantime we propose to remove the threshold of 35% and replace it by the average number of votes in the last 3 Congress and CP elections. The total of those 6 votes divided by 6 and rounded down should be the minimum number of valid votes in a referendum to be valid.

Oh by the way: The outcome of the referendum currently going on will almost without a doubt have no use as it is very hard to imagine we will meet the threshold. Underlining the fact we should change that 😉

"replace it by the average number of votes in the last 3 Congress and CP elections."

... that's exactly where I would go with any quorum as well (I would only use last month, but your method is more advanced and more fair)... though I would not use CP elections, as the lack of candidates sometimes lead to active people not voting in them. Probably the best fixing idea I have seen so far (though I see other problems beside quorum)!

We use 3 months because that way it's also more difficult to activate a few players just for a referendum and remove a temporal spike or dip in one election round. Aas for the reason the CP elections are include😛 It's more of a CM issue indeed yet it is about the active eNL community. Hard to say which elections are more representative for that CP or CM so the average of those 2 seemed fitting to us.

Seems fair indeed.

Just voted no.. here is why.

Voted no but the referendjm law in its current form does require to be ammended in order for it to be useful tool for our community again.

Also I understand those voting yes if they simply argue that people can ALWAYS start referendems eventhough they might not have any legal(by law) concequences they do reflect on the opinion of the eNL population which should always be considered by the government. I however would like to see the referendem to remain part of the law (but the current law needs to be changed).

It is not a problem of the referendum provision, but rather how this provision is formulated. The referendum is a most democratic way of expressing the will of citizens on the most important issues and should not be abolished, but there should be a list of voters in a referendum, instead of a fictitious number of voters as it is the case