From More Perfect

NOTE: For robust discussion of the The United States Constitution, please use: Forum: National: The U.S. Constitution

Contents 1 General Requests 2 Preamble 3 Article I 3.1 By the way, where is the moreperfect.org section for the District of Columbia under [Select State]? We (all half-million of us) are United States citizens too! 4 Article II 4.1 Sec. 4 5 Article IV 5.1 Sec. 4 6 Wholesale Changes - remember the Discuss courtesy 6.1 wkarnath's responses 6.2 Win, lose, or Draw's response to Mr. Grant 6.3 Win's response

General Requests

Would editors please post their rationale when making significant changes to the Framers' original text? I will adhere to this from now on.

I also request that significant changes to work of 21st-century editors be discussed here first, before revising the main article. Thank you. --Mr Grant 15:25, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Also-

I request that editors please keep this Discussion page organized according to Preamble, Article and Section, as I have started to do below for Articles II and IV. Within each section, keep threads in chrono order, and indent your replies using : , :: , :::, etc.

Would the moderator-owner please archive Discussion pages when they become too large and unwieldly. I have been following the editing process of several articles on Wikipedia, and I think these are good "best practices." --Mr Grant 16:34, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

Preamble

"We the Great People"

I would be interested in knowing the thinking behind this addition.--Mr Grant 15:15, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Doh! :-) I had used that as a demo of the wiki when I first put this page up, and forgot to remove it. I've now done so.. --Timothy 23:32, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Article I

What do people think of this idea?-- there should be language (possibly in Sec. 1) to the effect that neither house of Congress may delegate or otherwise cede any of its powers to the Executive or Judiciary. --Mr Grant 16:44, 9 July 2006 (CDT)

In the District Clause (Article I, Section Eight, Clause 17), the Constitution asserts for the Congress the same unwarranted absolute power "in all cases whatsoever" over the unrepresented District and its citizens, that the Declaratory Act of 1766 (qv) sought to assert for the British National government over the unrepresented American colonists (...they revolted).

By the way, where is the moreperfect.org section for the District of Columbia under [Select State]? We (all half-million of us) are United States citizens too!

Article II

Sec. 4

"lying under the color of office, violating their sworn oath of office" Pretty self-explanatory. Lying or violating the oath in the course of governance and creation of public policy leads to tyranny. --Mr Grant 15:38, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Article IV

Sec. 4

"republican Form of Government" Is this really necessary? The three branches of Government, with checks and balances and houses of Congress apportioning seats in different manners, makes it clear the form of government is republican and not parliamentary or direct-democracy. --Mr Grant 15:25, 8 July 2006 (CDT)

Wholesale Changes - remember the Discuss courtesy

So, it appears a Wkarnath has edited the MP Constitution so as to do away with the three branches of government as well as state legislatures, replacing them with some sort of multi-level local-state-national "decisionmaking chain."

It also appears Wkarnath has done this without discussing the motivation for these changes as well as their rationale, and origins of the various organizing concepts. Without such explanations, these changes constitute (heh) a unilateral imposition of a new system of government. In other words, in a way precisely opposite to the consensus-building approach Wkarnath is laying out.

Therefore, it is only fair to everyone if Wkarnath makes some explanations of his/her changes to this Constitution. Some topics could include:

• Should a national constitution dictate to states and localities the makeup of their legislative bodies? Why bother with states?
• Who decides when a group is significant enough to attain stakeholder status?
• What if someone is a member of many stakeholding groups? Is it fair that person should have more representation?
• The representational algorithm is to be based on a wide ranging issues survey. Does this not merely translate diverse popular opinions into political strength -- opinions which can be based on socially negative values as well as positive ones? Is this an improvement over the present system of population-based House apportionment?

• What body administers programs that the legislature enacts? Does this not require an executive, or is this a parliamentary system with administrative portfolios?
• Why cannot war issues also be directed in a consensus approach?
• What is the difference between the Tax Laid In Proportion to the Census, and the Fair Tax?
• Why does each state need its own import inspections regulations?

Please discuss. Everyone please chime in. However, reversion is on the table. --Mr Grant 22:29, 8 July 2007 (CDT)

wkarnath's responses

Allow me to respond point by point. I don't agree that I have "done away with," nor advocated the doing away with, the three branches of government. In my "plan" all three branches do still exist, but they are all drastically reduced in size. The legislative branch would be the main branch except during times of war, when an executive would emerge by popular vote of the legislature. My plan also makes provisions for a judiciary, however it would be a judiciary constituted of representatives of all aspects of society, therefore More Representative.

The main "motivation" and "rationale" of these proposed changes is a desire to design a more truly representative form of government and also to reduce the size of government at the same time.

I am a little confused by your apparent criticism that my plan is "unilateral." How would anyone build consensus before making a proposal?

As is the case now, the National Legislative body would be able to overrule the state or local legislatures. However, as is the case now, it would be unwise for the National Legislature to "dictate" to the state and local representatives. The reason for the state and local legislative bodies is Representation of the interests of their constituencies. There must be give and take in a truly representative democracy.

In my "plan" all groups are "significant" enough to deserve stakeholder status. The purpose of the algorithm is to insure that, as far as humanly possible, all groups are properly represented. The algorithm would be designed to take into account overlap of opinions and people being members of more than one stakeholder group.

Allow me to stop there for now. I am still trying to get the hang of this forum. Thank you, Win, Lose, or Draw (He, not she)

Do you participate at the official Wikipedia? Because over there, in most cases, editors implement their changes directly into the main article, then hash it out with edits and counter-edits. I have engaged in this kind of Wikipedia "consensus"-building; it can be a protracted, exasperating, emotional and messy process.

While More Perfect is wiki-based, I don't think the Wikipedia editing approach suits what is supposed to be a community-building process that centers on issues. MP is about process as much as it is about outcomes, whereas Wikipedia is about outcome: the complete, verified and objective research article, process be damned.

Over the past months, on some MP pages we have attempted to institute a policy of Discussing our changes first, or at the same time that we implement them. Because those of us who have edited Wiki have learned that such explanations help everyone understand the reasons behind changes. Explaining edits on the Discuss Page is analogous to how the Federalist Papers explain what the original framers meant.

Because you did not explain your revisions, in essence they had meaning only to you. My questions should be understood as an attempt to get to that meaning.

For instance, I don't think you fully considered your answer to my inquiry about stakeholders. Your goal is well stated, you wrote, In my "plan" all groups are "significant" enough to deserve stakeholder status. The purpose of the algorithm is to insure that, as far as humanly possible, all groups are properly represented. However, your explanation (as you have explained it thus far) of how it would be implemented, The algorithm would be designed to take into account overlap of opinions and people being members of more than one stakeholder group, lacks the 5 Ws and H. In my view this new complexity (creating an algorithm, IDing groups, counting them and their overlaps, etc.) ends up back where you started -- if your universe N of stakeholders is all people, how is the algorithm better than if we were to target all people (N) with serious, nonpartisan civics education, voter registration, and reforms such as voting holidays?

My preference would be for you to revert the Constitution to its state prior to your revisions. I suggest you then address each Article and subsection in this Discuss Page -- e.g., "I think Article II Sec. 1 is a problem because A; I propose B instead; my reason for believing B would be superior is C." Hopefully, we can attract some more editors and reach understanding AND consensus, and then implement changes in the main article.

I want to understand what you're doing, and how you understand what you're doing. This is all I am asking. --Mr Grant 14:24, 1 August 2007 (CDT)

Win, lose, or Draw's response to Mr. Grant

Mr. Grant: I am sorry you have had bad experiences with Wikipedia. However, either I am confused about what this site is all about, or you are. I thought that this site was designed as a forum for open discussion leading to a certain amount of consensus about possible ways to improve ourselves and our government. You seem to want to control things. The word you seem to fall back on is "process." Are you sure you are clear about the concept of consensus building? Mine is a pretty big and all inclusive idea. You seem to want to deal only with details. It isn't consensus building if you are the only one who decides what might be appropriate input. However, since you are apparently the only one responding to my thoughts, I will try to find a more vibrant forum in which to express my idea. Since you asked about my vision of potential stakeholder groups, let me attempt to clarify that somewhat before signing off. My "system" would require an as yet uncreated (to be created by consensus) list of all possible groupings of citizens: Unemployed, middle class, rich, white collar, blue collar, laborer, white, hispanic, African American. The survey would be the second stage. It too is as yet not created (to be created by consensus of expert test/survey designers). All designated groups would be surveyed on their opinions on all of the key issues. The key issues would also have to be developed by consensus. The results of the survey would determine the level of overlap between these groups on the issues. Suppose for instance that seventy five percent of all people in twenty-five percent of all stakeholder groups self report that they agree that abortion should be banned. Suppose then Twenty-five percent of all people in the remaining seventy-five percent of stakeholder groups believe the opposite. That of course is not the case, but this is a hypothetical. The goal would be to end up with representation that represents that and all other opinions in the proper proportions. The algorithm would have to be designed to do that. It would be a massive undertaking, but not, I believe, an impossible one. Good luck in your future efforts. Win, lose, or draw

I'm only asking questions which you don't seem to want to answer with any specificity. My personal tendency is to balance Big Picture with Practicality. Sure, I see the advantage of identifying all interests. But then I want to know how real decisions affecting public life can be made in a reasonably prompt manner if voting is essentially removed from the equation. How are fundamental rights protected for those stakeholders who cannot agree on consensus (would you apply consensus to the Bill Of Rights as well?)? How is statistical error resolved in the event of a 50-50 opinion tie, or even a 25-25-25-25 opinion tie?

I would love to hear more about your concepts once you flesh them out.--Mr Grant 01:38, 3 August 2007 (CDT)

Mr. Grant: I understand your frustration about my lack of specifics. However, this is an idea, not an erector set. I was hoping to find a forum where I could "impose" on others of like or similar minds to help me flesh out the details. My "system" does not eliminate voting. Each representative would be voted on just as now. After Once the groupings and proportionality have been established via the "process" voting would be the essential next step. My "system" is in a very real sense a meritocracy, since, theoretically, it would be in each voting groups interest to elect only the best and most persuasive candidates.

Win's response

Mr. Grant: I understand your frustration about my lack of specifics. However, this is an idea, not an erector set. I was hoping to find a forum where I could "impose" on others of like or similar minds to help me flesh out the details. My "system" does not eliminate voting. Each representative would be voted on just as now. After Once the groupings and proportionality have been established via the "process" voting would be the essential next step. My "system" is in a very real sense a meritocracy, since, theoretically, it would be in each voting groups interest to elect only the best and most persuasive candidates.

Why don't you begin by redrafting Article I, here on the Discussion page?--Mr Grant 20:26, 5 August 2007 (CDT)