Template:CharterVote2/32/Discussion

< RETURN TO THE MAIN PAGE
Would it do any good to say that Citizens have the right to petition the councils for a referendum on a contested rule? Requiring the petitioners to demonstrate the need for a referndum would put up a barrier of sorts to repeated referendum-calling. IT would also lay more on the shoulders of the councils, of course. -Joe Quick 05:22, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I think everyone has concerns with this one. Go ahead and start with something and we'll work our way through it. D. Matt Innis 12:19, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Referenda

Referenda may be initiated in two ways:
1. Any Citizen may petition either the Management Council or Editorial Council that contested rules or guidelines be submitted to a referendum. Either Council must have jurisdiction over the contested matter. Either Council may, by simple majority vote, submit the referendum to a vote of the citizenry at the next regular election.
2. A referendum may be initiated by a group of twelve (12) Citizens or a number corresponding in size to the sum of the quorums of the two Councils, whichever is greater. The Management Council must include a valid citizen-initiated referendum in the next regular election. Failure to do so will automatically pass the referendum which shall then become official policy and enforceable. This charter may not be amended by a failure of the Management Council to submit a referendum to a vote.

Furthermore:

• A referendum must be written as enforceable rules or guidelines.
  
• A referendum shall be decided by simple majority of the votes validly cast by the citizenry during a regular election.
  
• Any amendment to and any change of this Charter shall require a referendum and shall be ratified if accepted by a qualified majority of two thirds of the votes validly cast.
  
• Any change of the license shall require a referendum.

This suggestion allows for two ways that a referendum can be started: by an individual citizen or by a group of citizens. If a group proposes a referendum, it automatically goes on the next ballot. The group must be at least 12 citizens (or some other number). The current size of the "sum of the quorums of the two councils" is seven, which I think is too low. I'm also thinking that any reference to Amending the Charter should be removed from this section and placed in a separate article. Russell D. Jones 13:35, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Wow, good work. If the MC doesn't write something up.. "Failure to do so will automatically pass the referendum which shall then become official policy" , or do we want it to be forced to a vote. D. Matt Innis 14:07, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

No, I think it should force to vote. It has to be the responsibility of some body to finalize the language. A Citizen supermajority should require the relevant body to write the language or resign. That supermajority might indeed need safeguards about packing the vote -- eligible voters might, for example, be held to the requirements suggested for Charter ratification (e.g., one edit at least N days before vote).

Don't make it too easy, especially in the early days when the Councils need a chance to get started. I would not support single-Citizen referenda, and I'd lean toward some multiple of EC+MC. Howard C. Berkowitz 15:37, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Russell's suggestion, except that I would try to define the number dynamically, e.g. "10 percent of the users who made an edit during the 30 days prior to filing the initiation of the referendum". Need to think about how to phrase that, though. --Daniel Mietchen 21:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

@Howard: This isn't a "single-Citizen" referendum. A citizen can petition the MC or EC for a change of policy; if they like it, they can change policy as a function of their duties. If, however, the MC or EC thinks that it's too big a change in policy, they can put it to the people (that makes it basically a plebiscite). On the other hand, if a group of citizens comes forward in opposition to the EC or MC and want policy changed against the will of the MC or EC, they can get that accomplished, too. No, we don't need a supermajority to determine the will of the people.

@Daniel: I agree that a dynamic figure would be better but how do we figure it? I'm user #31,000 plus change. So we don't want a figure based on {{NUMBEROFUSERS}}. If CZ compiles use stats then that might work. But, it's got to be automated. Does the mediawiki API work at CZ? That could generate a list of user edits in the last 30 days. But the number should also be readily available. So, if I'm a disgruntled git from WP who now wants to shed my sockpuppet pseudonym and write at CZ, but I don't like the article naming policy and want to start a campaign to get it changed, I should be able to find out that I need X number of signatories on a referendum in order to get it on the ballot. I shouldn't have to email my mortal enemy and ask, "please, sir, how many do I need?" <because I'm an annoying git, my mortal enemy just may tell me "10,000"> So my point is that the number should be dynamically figured but stable enough so that I don't keep chasing a unicorn. How about, "twenty-percent of the number of voters in the previous election." Thus we can post the number on CZ:Referenda and it will be good for one year. Given our probable turnout for this election, twenty-percent would mean about 12 people (if we're lucky). So someone seeking to get a referendum on the 2011 ballot would have to get that number of signatures by some date. Russell D. Jones 21:50, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

Data of the kind I had in mind are readily available here but "twenty percent [without hyphen this time] of the number of voters in the previous election" is a better fit. --Daniel Mietchen 22:29, 22 July 2010 (UTC)

So which text are we voting on? It looks like some adjustments are in order. Joe Quick 15:40, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

With Daniel's suggestion for dynamic number: Russell D. Jones 15:44, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Referenda

Referenda may be initiated in two ways:
1. Any Citizen may petition either the Management Council or Editorial Council that contested rules or guidelines be submitted to a referendum. Either Council must have jurisdiction over the contested matter. Either Council may, by simple majority vote, submit the referendum to a vote of the citizenry at the next regular election.
2. A referendum may be initiated by a group of Citizens or a number corresponding in size to the sum of the quorums of the two Councils, whichever is greater twenty (20) percent of the number of voters in the previous election. The Management Council must include a valid citizen-initiated referendum in the next regular election. Failure to do so will automatically pass the referendum which shall then become official policy and enforceable. This charter may not be amended by a failure of the Management Council to submit a referendum to a vote.

Furthermore:

• A referendum must be written as enforceable rules or guidelines.
  
• A referendum shall be decided by simple majority of the votes validly cast by the citizenry during a regular election.
  
• Any amendment to and any change of this Charter shall require a referendum and shall be ratified if accepted by a qualified majority of two thirds of the votes validly cast.
  
• Any change of the license shall require a referendum.

Definite improvement, but I need some clarification. Are all referenda to be at regular elections, with no provision for special elections? I agree with that, but I wanted to be sure. Howard C. Berkowitz 16:15, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't recall a special election clause. Do you want one? Russell D. Jones 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree. Joe Quick 16:25, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. Russell D. Jones 18:53, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

No desire for special election. Agree. Howard C. Berkowitz 19:04, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While pasting the text in, I replaced "twenty (20)" with "20". --Daniel Mietchen 19:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)