Constitutional Amendment Article I, Section 6: Referenda

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 12:17 pm

A few months ago we were discussing constitutional amendments. The thread in question is available here (in particular post 62 onwards) [url:2t03syc3]http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... =amendment[/url:2t03syc3]. The issue was also discussed at the RA meeting on 19 April 2006.

The following amendment would add an additional step to the ratification of constitutional amendments. After a 2/3 vote of the RA and ratification by the SC, the final step in agreeing a constitutional amendment would be a referendum. The amendment would need a 2/3 majority of those voting and a simple majority of the total electorate in order to pass. E.g. if 20 out of 29 vote in favour out of an electorate of 38 the measure would pass. If 19 out of 20 vote in favour the measure would not pass (because 19/38 is not a simple majority i.e. 50%+1).

There was some discussion at the RA about whether constitutional amendments should be grouped or whether the electorate should be able to vote on each and every one. I think it makes sense for the RA to decide on the grouping and ordering in order to avoid perverse results e.g. contradictory or overlapping amendments.

There was also some discussion about when the referendum should take place and many thought the following election would be a good time, the amendments to take effect during that RA session. I think this is potentially too long to wait. For example, any constitutional amendments agreed during this RA session would not take effect until Jan 07 at the earliest! I have proposed that the RA should be able to determine the timing of referenda so that 'urgent' constitutional amendments can be quickly made.

Article I, Section 6 once amended would read as follows:
------------------------------------------------
[b:2t03syc3]Constitutional Amendment Article I, Section 6: Referenda[/b:2t03syc3]

A vote in the RA is a simple majority vote of representative seats. Constitutional amendments require a 2/3 vote.

Ratification of law is performed by the Philosophic branch, which can veto a bill or resubmit a modified bill for vote, if it conflicts with the Constitution.

Constitutional amendments which have been passed by the RA and ratified by the Philosophic branch shall be submitted to a referendum before taking effect. The RA shall decide on the grouping and ordering of proposed amendments and the timing of the referendum. Constitutional amendments require the assent of 2/3 of those voting and a simple majority of the total electorate in order to pass.

The Artisanal branch may veto a revenue bill or resubmit a modified revenue bill for vote.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Tue Aug 01, 2006 2:00 pm

I recall that there were two reasons for the original proposal (vote on amendments during the general election, to take effect at the beginning of next term)

1. This prevents an RA from benefitting directly from an amendment it approved.

2. Having only one election per six months keeps the electorate from being buried in voting events. There was also a concern that maintaining voter turnout might be challenging.

Perhaps we also need to look carefully at the voting procedures (remember the difficulty with "absentee ballots") as or before we do something which makes voting a more frequent event.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Mon Aug 07, 2006 10:53 am

The proposal that constitutional amendments should take effect after a referendum at the next General Election is a cautious recommendation. It prevents an RA from immediately benefitting from the amendments it approves, as Claude has reminded us, and it saves the electorate from a barrage of elections that could lead to voter fatigue and a decline in voting rates.

It's not something that I would die in a ditch over so I'm happy if the RA wants to amend my proposal in this way.

But I'd just like to offer a few reasons why I think it might be better not to tie the hands of this RA (and future RAs) so firmly:

1) Six months is a hellishly long time to wait for constitutional amendments to take effect. We are currently discussing Guild reform and the urgent need to establish an effective Executive branch. Both of these issues are vital to the effective running of our community. They need to be fully debated and then implemented now, not in six months time.

2) We cannot foresee the challenges that we will face in the future and it is better to retain the capacity to be fleet of foot. To force subsequent RAs to wait six months to make necessary constitutional changes may leave them hampered and unable to change with the times. Also, it is an encumberance that [i:3t9w28db][b:3t9w28db]no previous RA has had to work with[/b:3t9w28db][/i:3t9w28db]. Why would it be appropriate to tie the RAs hands now?

3) Future RAs are best placed to judge whether the electorate can bear another chance to vote or would resent it. The voters have the best tool at their disposal to express their will: they can remove a faction which calls referenda willy-nilly at the subsequent election.

For these reasons I would recommend giving the RA discretion on when to call referenda to ratify constitutional change.

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:05 am

This Amendment was scheduled for the October 7th RA Meeting, and adjourned, so I'll benefit from the adjournment to post some questions.

1. Do we want to lock the Constitution in its present form? A 2/3 of the voting outcome that is the majority of the citizens seems a very demanding target for a constitutional reform after the approval of this Amendment.

2. Does every line in the Constitution deserve the same protection? I see differences between say, the list fo Founding Documents and some technicalities in the Judiciary Bill.

(By the way, I insist that the main part of the Judiciary Act should have been an ordinary law. Someone has a signature that compares the Ten Commandments, Gettysburg address and a cabbage regulation. Well, the Spanish Constitution (1978) section on the Judiciary is 823 words long, and the US Constitution (1789) section is 377 words (one third of it devoted to treason). Our Judiciary Act is 7,000 words long.)

3. If we lock the Constitution, shouldn't we do it through a referendum? It seems to me that it's a bit paradoxical to use a key to close the Constitution and require another one to open it.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 2:50 am

Thanks for raising this from the deep freeze Fernando. There have been several concerns expressed by citizens recently about the passage of the Judiciary Bill and the pace of constitutional change. This amendment would help to ensure citizen involvement in decision-making so I'm glad that you've revived the discussion and introduced points that I hadn't considered when drafting this back in August.

[quote="Fernando Book":1655p4uv]1. Do we want to lock the Constitution in its present form? A 2/3 of the voting outcome that is the majority of the citizens seems a very demanding target for a constitutional reform after the approval of this Amendment.[/quote:1655p4uv]
I think that is open to debate. Just to be clear, we're not talking about needing a 2/3 majority of the total citizenry to pass a CA (constitutional amendment) but 2/3[b:1655p4uv][i:1655p4uv] of those voting[/i:1655p4uv][/b:1655p4uv]. That means that with our current population of (approximately) 39 citizens, you would need to have at least 20 citizens vote and then at least 14 (of the 20) vote in favour of the CA. So you could get a CA passed with the support of 'only' 14 (out of 39) citizens. Some might argue that bar was too low!

The reason for having a 2/3 majority in there was that this is the requirement for a CA to pass in the RA (representative assembly). It's not essential that this be the case so feel free to argue for a lower bar such as a simple majority of those voting.

We should also consider what the arithmetic looks like as we grow; we don't want to saddle ourselves with a requirement that stifles innovation and change. We'll soon be at around 100 residents when Colonia Nova comes online. Does this still work for a community of that size? How about 500, 1 000, 10 000?

[quote:1655p4uv]2. Does every line in the Constitution deserve the same protection? I see differences between say, the list fo Founding Documents and some technicalities in the Judiciary Bill.

(By the way, I insist that the main part of the Judiciary Act should have been an ordinary law.... Well, the Spanish Constitution (1978) section on the Judiciary is 823 words long, and the US Constitution (1789) section is 377 words (one third of it devoted to treason). Our Judiciary Act is 7,000 words long.)[/quote:1655p4uv]
This is an important point which we really ought to keep in mind more. I regret that we didn't consider this fully enough in relation to the Judiciary Act. We need to be clearer in our law-making about the distinction between our constitution and ordinary laws. The constitution should provide the framework and general principles, laws should provide the detail of how the principles will be implemented in practice. Nevertheless, we are where we are so I wouldn't want this observation to be used to try to unpick the Judiciary Act, recently passed as amended.

[quote:1655p4uv]3. If we lock the Constitution, shouldn't we do it through a referendum? It seems to me that it's a bit paradoxical to use a key to close the Constitution and require another one to open it.[/quote:1655p4uv]
Paradoxical, maybe, but entirely consistent with our current laws and constitution. There is no requirement currently for citizen ratification of the constitution or of amendment to it. This CA would involve citizens in this process for the first time. But your point is an interesting one - should citizens be given the opportunity first to give their verdict on our current constitution? I can see the attraction of that but, what happens if they vote 'No'? Are we then left without a constitution? Or would we have to convene a constitutional convention (aaaargh!) in order to hammer out a document that all could agree to? Well, let's debate the merits of this proposal but, just for the record, if we need to ratify what we already have I'll be very firmly in the 'Ratify' camp as the prospect of several months constitutional navel-gazing fills me with horror!

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 3:32 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1rxiip5t]I think that is open to debate. Just to be clear, we're not talking about needing a 2/3 majority of the total citizenry to pass a CA (constitutional amendment) but 2/3[b:1rxiip5t][i:1rxiip5t] of those voting[/i:1rxiip5t][/b:1rxiip5t]. That means that with our current population of (approximately) 39 citizens, you would need to have at least 20 citizens vote and then at least 14 (of the 20) vote in favour of the CA. So you could get a CA passed with the support of 'only' 14 (out of 39) citizens. Some might argue that bar was too low!

The reason for having a 2/3 majority in there was that this is the requirement for a CA to pass in the RA (representative assembly). It's not essential that this be the case so feel free to argue for a lower bar such as a simple majority of those voting.

We should also consider what the arithmetic looks like as we grow; we don't want to saddle ourselves with a requirement that stifles innovation and change. We'll soon be at around 100 residents when Colonia Nova comes online. Does this still work for a community of that size? How about 500, 1 000, 10 000?[/quote:1rxiip5t]

It is probably very unwise indeed to have a requirement that a constitutional amendment (which requirement itself can only be reversed by a constiutional amendment) requiring a certain proportion of the total citizens, rather than merely a certain proportion of those who vote at all, or else there is always the potential for apathy to create deadlock. Why should those who cannot be bothered to be involved in our democratic processes have the power to prevent what a substantial majority of those who do choose to be involved want? If people want to stand against a proposed amendment, they should have to go out and vote "no".

[quote:1rxiip5t][quote:1rxiip5t]2. Does every line in the Constitution deserve the same protection? I see differences between say, the list fo Founding Documents and some technicalities in the Judiciary Bill.

(By the way, I insist that the main part of the Judiciary Act should have been an ordinary law.... Well, the Spanish Constitution (1978) section on the Judiciary is 823 words long, and the US Constitution (1789) section is 377 words (one third of it devoted to treason). Our Judiciary Act is 7,000 words long.)[/quote:1rxiip5t]
This is an important point which we really ought to keep in mind more. I regret that we didn't consider this fully enough in relation to the Judiciary Act. We need to be clearer in our law-making about the distinction between our constitution and ordinary laws. The constitution should provide the framework and general principles, laws should provide the detail of how the principles will be implemented in practice. Nevertheless, we are where we are so I wouldn't want this observation to be used to try to unpick the Judiciary Act, recently passed as amended.[/quote:1rxiip5t]

I very much like Fernando's idea of having different levels of entrehcnment for different parts of the constitution. Some could require 2/3rds in the RA to change, some simpe majority of those voting at a referrendum plus 2/3rds in the RA, and some 2/3rds of those voting in a referrendum and 2/3rds of the RA. That would strike a good balance between flexibility and entrenchment.

As to the Judiciary Act, I did give careful consideration to which parts ought to be ordinary laws and which parts ought be in the constitution. For all those parts that were inserted into the constitution, there was a very good reason, in relation to each of them, why that should be so. Substantial parts, however, were not inserted into the constitution, such as the entire seciton on marshals of the peace, which was not a constitutional amendment at all.

However, Fernando is right that many aspects of what is now Article VII of the Constitution should have the lowest of the three degrees of protection.

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 4:45 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1vdow4lo]Thanks for raising this from the deep freeze Fernando.
(...)
Just to be clear, we're not talking about needing a 2/3 majority of the total citizenry to pass a CA (constitutional amendment) but 2/3[b:1vdow4lo][i:1vdow4lo] of those voting[/i:1vdow4lo][/b:1vdow4lo]. That means that with our current population of (approximately) 39 citizens, you would need to have at least 20 citizens vote and then at least 14 (of the 20) vote in favour of the CA. So you could get a CA passed with the support of 'only' 14 (out of 39) citizens. Some might argue that bar was too low!
[/quote:1vdow4lo]
You're welcome. And I misunderstood the proposal: I thought that the 2/3 of the voters should be also the majority of the total citizenry (i.e., in your example the CA would not be passed, you would need at least 20 votes in favour of any CA).

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1vdow4lo]Nevertheless, we are where we are so I wouldn't want this observation to be used to try to unpick the Judiciary Act, recently passed as amended. [/quote:1vdow4lo]

Neither do I. If we have passed the Judiciary Act, it should be kept as is.

[quote="Ashcrof Burnham":1vdow4lo]I very much like Fernando's idea of having different levels of entrenchment for different parts of the constitution. [/quote:1vdow4lo]
Thanks but I'm only following the model of the Spanish Constitution (in this issue; I wouldn't suggest to take it as an universal example). Just for the record, we have two level of entrenchment. Most of the Constitution can be changed wiht a majority of 3/5 in each Chamber, but a referendum must be called if one tenth of the representants or the senators ask for it. But a part of the Constitution, mainly the definition of Spain as a democratic country, the Human Rights clauses, and the question of the Monarchy needs to be modified: a 2/3 majority in each chamber, automatic general elections, a renewed 2/3 majority in each chamber, and a referendum. And Constitutional reform is prohibited in times of war or in state of siege.

[quote="Patroklus Murakami on the question of the paradox of closing the Constitution without a referendum":1vdow4lo]
Paradoxical, maybe, but entirely consistent with our current laws and constitution. There is no requirement currently for citizen ratification of the constitution or of amendment to it. This CA would involve citizens in this process for the first time. But your point is an interesting one - should citizens be given the opportunity first to give their verdict on our current constitution?[/quote:1vdow4lo]
Of course, this CA is consistent with our current regulations. But I don't want a referendum on the whole Constitution, only on this Amendment. I see that in fact it would be something like a plebiscite on the Constitution, but it would have the advantage of not rejecting the Constitution, but sending a signal to the RA for reforming it.

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:09 pm

[quote="Fernando Book":z4tra9ut].

(By the way, I insist that the main part of the Judiciary Act should have been an ordinary law. Someone has a signature that compares the Ten Commandments, Gettysburg address and a cabbage regulation. Well, the Spanish Constitution (1978) section on the Judiciary is 823 words long, and the US Constitution (1789) section is 377 words (one third of it devoted to treason). Our Judiciary Act is 7,000 words long.)

[/quote:z4tra9ut]

You may not understand the US Constitution was written to address problems with the articles of Confederation. I find it insulting your remarks that it was treasonous. The peace treaty of 1783 ended all of the British Empires involvement in our affairs.
The American Constitution was made difficult to change for a reason. Please note how it protects the rights of the smaller states from being overwhelmed by the larger ones. It also counters the tyranny of the majority to a certain extent. Is it perfect, well of course not. It is an attempt to make a better government and the American experiment is still in progress.

Chicago Kipling · Post by **Chicago Kipling** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 12:49 pm

Does it seem to you, Ranma, that this will at least be one small step in compromise that will value your recent concerns? I would be slow to presume that on your behalf, but this seems to have good potential in that regard.

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Oct 08, 2006 1:50 pm

[quote="Ranma Tardis":33md2157]You may not understand the US Constitution was written to address problems with the articles of Confederation. I find it insulting your remarks that it was treasonous. [/quote:33md2157]

I'm very sorry for the misunderstanding, and I had no intention to insult anyone. I said that one third of the article of the US Constitution on the Judiciary is devoted to treason as a legal concept.
Article III, Section 3 of the US Constitution reads:

[quote:33md2157]"Section 3. Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.

The Congress shall have power to declare the punishment of treason, but no attainder of treason shall work corruption of blood, or forfeiture except during the life of the person attainted. "[/quote:33md2157]

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:08 am

[b:2968xxgh][u:2968xxgh]Differential entrenchment[/u:2968xxgh][/b:2968xxgh]

Since this motion was tabled for further discussion at the last RA meeting, I though that I should make some suggestions elaborating the point about differential entrenchment that I made above.

As I suggested there, different parts of the constitution should be differentially entrenched. Claude asked during the meeting how one would indicate which parts of the constitution are entrenched to what level: my suggestion is to use symbols next to the part of the constitution in question. So:

[no symbol]: minimal entrenchment - 2/3rds majority in the RA needed to change or remove provision.

♦: Level 1 entrenchment - 2/3rds majority in the RA, plus a simple majority of those voting at a referendum needed to change or remove provision.

♦♦: Level 2 entrenchment - 2/3rds majority in the RA, plus 2/3rds of those voting in a referendum needed to change or remove provision.

♦♦♦: Level 3 entrenchment: - unanimity in the RA, plus 3/4 of those voting, and a simple majority of all those eligible to vote, in a referendum needed to change or remove provision.

(The symbol, incidentally, can be accessed by typing ALT+260 - it is part of the extended ASCII character set).

Two things, then, require furhter thought, one straightforward, one less so. The first is, how exactly to associate the symbols with the text. The second is which parts of the constitution should have what levels of protection.

As to the fisrt, there are effectively two options: either to place the symbols after every numbered section or subsection to which the entrenchment should attach, as in:
[quote:2968xxgh] ♦♦2. Some section of the constitution.
♦♦3. Some other section of the constitution,[/quote:2968xxgh]

or surround any section that is to have more than minimal entrenchment with the symbols, as in,

[quote:2968xxgh] ♦♦
2. Some section of the constitution.
3. Some other section of the constitution.
♦♦[/quote:2968xxgh]

As to the second, this is a large and serious issue, and it might be worth setting up a special committee just to look at this point. However, let me suggest some examples of things that should be in each category:

[i:2968xxgh]Minimal entrenchment[/i:2968xxgh]

(from Article IV (factions), Section 2)
"The minimum faction size is equal to three. No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA."

(from Article VII (the Chancellor), Section 10)
"10. This amendment shall be shall be reviewed by the Representative Assembly after a Chancellor has been in office for two terms, and will continue in force only if re-approved at that time."

[i:2968xxgh]Level 1 entrenchment[/i:2968xxgh]

The entire section on the Artisanal Collective.

(from Article I - representative assembly)
"Section 5 - Journal

The RA shall keep and publish a journal of its proceedings. The
individual votes of RA members shall be entered in the journal.
Parts of the journal that are deemed secret by a 2/3 majority and
with concurrence of the Philosophic branch will not be published.

Secret journal entries may only be deemed secret if they prevent
the exploitation of the city and citizens from external threats.
All secret journal entries will have an expiration date at which
time they will be voted upon again by the RA and verified
as constitutional by the Philosophic branch."

[i:2968xxgh]Level 2 entrenchment[/i:2968xxgh]

(from Article I, section 8 - limits of the RA)
"No member of the RA may engage in what might be considered
a conflict of interest such as accepting money or favors from
individuals or special-interest groups. "

(from Article VII (the Chancellor), section 4)

"4. Nothing in this Act shall give the Chancellor of Neufriestadt
any power to change the overall theme of Neufriestadt. "

[i:2968xxgh]Level 3 entrenchment[/i:2968xxgh]

(from Article V (election, term and office), section 1)

"Officials in the Government are elected for a period of time
according to the general principles of democratic rotativity to
ensure proper representativity in a changing society, whose
duration will be fixed by the RA by passing appropriate laws. "

Anything that purports to replace, remove or suspend the operation of the entire constitution.

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 3:24 am

[b:25a9r77u][u:25a9r77u]Addendum: entrenching entrehcnment levels[/b:25a9r77u][/u:25a9r77u]

Of course, the system will not work if the entrenchment levels themselves are not entrenched. The best way of dealing with that is to require that [i:25a9r77u]changing[/i:25a9r77u] the entrenchment level of any provision requires that the same conditions be met as is required for the entrenchment level [i:25a9r77u]from[/i:25a9r77u] which the provision is being changed, and that the section dealing with entrenchment generally be level 3 entrenched.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 7:53 am

Even to me, a proponent of precision, this seems like overkill. I can see value in perhaps having a distinction between entrenched and non-entrenched, but four levels?

Ashcroft Burnham · Post by **Ashcroft Burnham** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 9:27 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2fxpmr2x]Even to me, a proponent of precision, this seems like overkill. I can see value in perhaps having a distinction between entrenched and non-entrenched, but four levels?[/quote:2fxpmr2x]

Hmm, there is merit in a degree of granularity, but perhaps we do not need quite this much - maybe combine levels 1 and 2? It is important to have some provisions that are fairly easy to change, some that are quite difficult, and some that require overwhelming support, but four levels rather than three might indeed be just a little too much. Fewer than three, however, would not be enough.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Tue Oct 17, 2006 11:42 am

Thanks to Ash for picking up the baton with regard to levels of entrenchment and to Claude for seeking to simplify a potentially complex solution. I want to refocus the debate on some issues which were raised at last week's RA meeting but which need a fuller debate here. I want to try to set out the questions (in order) that the RA needs to answer in order to pass this proposal (or not) in one form or another.

1. Does the RA believe we need referenda for constitutional amendments?
Up until now we have functioned as a representative democracy and have resisted attempts to include elements of direct democracy in our system of government. It could be argued that the introduction of referenda into that system goes against the founding spirit on which the community was based. If I understand Gwyn's (personal) opinion correctly she would prefer not to have any referenda at all.

I think we need to acknowledge that many real world representative democracies employ referenda for settling some political issues, including constitutional questions. I can think of the example of the UK's referendum on continued membership of the EEC in the 1970s and the Scottish referendum on devolution of power to a Scottish Parliament more recently. So the use of referenda cannot be held to undermine representative democracy, at least in the real world.

Gwyn also pointed to referenda as a conservative influence. People dislike and distrust change, so the argument goes, and so any system that relies on popular assent in a referendum is likely to ossify and be unable to keep pace with the times. I think this is a potentially strong argument but it would mean that we don't trust our citizens to see the benefit of a change for the better. Are we really that pessimistic about the capacity of people to embrace necessary changes? Given that some citizens are complaining that the pace of constitutional reform (at least during this RA session) is too fast, wouldn't demanding popular agreement to such changes ensure that they really had popular support? Otherwise an activist RA, and a complicit or negligent SC, could lead to wholesale constitutional revision that does not command popular support.

2. Does the RA want to exercise control over how referenda are presented to the electorate?
We could allow citizens to vote on each and every constitutional amendment independently of each other. The problem is that this could lead to overlapping or contradictory amendments being passed. I know that many (including probably the majority of the RA) would prefer to give citizens the most control possible over what gets passed or not. But I haven't seen anyone say how you would address this potential problem. If you want to give citizens full control, what are you going to do if they pass contradictory amendments? For example, if they were to be presented with one of Ash's earlier drafts of the Judiciary Bill and Justice's amendments, what would you do if they passed a combination of the two and we ended up with a constitutional dog's dinner?

3. Should the referenda be fixed to an arbitrary timetable e.g. at election time?
I've covered the arguments for and against this in previous posts. Do those who want to fix the timetable think that it would have been acceptable to wait for Jan 07 to get a Chancellor or a Judicial system? If not, we need to give the RA the choice of when to call referenda.

4. Should constitutional amendments passed by referenda take effect immediately or at the start of the next RA session?
The answer depends partly on your answer to question 3. Assuming you agree with me that the RA should be able to choose when to call referenda you might still believe that they should not take effect until a new RA is installed. That way an RA cannot 'benefit' from any changes they approve.

I think this is super-cautious and unnecessary. If a constitutional amendment has been passed by a 2/3 majority of our elected representatives, approved as constitutional by the SC and passed by popular vote, it should take effect immediately; it would clearly have passed with sufficient support.

5. What degree of popular support should be necessary for referenda to pass?
I have said what I think is reasonable, I think it's open to debate.

6. Should there be different levels of protection for different parts of the Constitution?
I can see why this might be necessary but I suspect that agreeing the levels of entrenchment appropriate to different parts of the Constitution is a long discussion! Coming so soon on the heels of extended constitutional debate are we really up for this?

7. Should these changes be approved by a referendum?
I'd be happy with that idea. It would need an amendment to my proposal to allow for it to happen. I'm prepared to consider it as a friendly amendment if someone else will do the drafting!

I hope this helps to structure the debate at the RA meeting and that citizens want to debate these questions here in the meantime. It became clear to me at the RA meeting last week that there are a number of issues all packed together here. I hope that this post helps us to unpack the issues and determine a way forward.