Jul 28, 17 / Vir 13, 01 12:44 UTC

186,385 (66%) REJECT the draft Constitution  

As of this post, that is the number.

186,385 voted No

97,377 voted yes

283,762 citizens in total

Asgardia, 66% of your citizens reject this Constitution draft. Time to go back to the drawing board.

Per Lena, the website automatically registers your vote as no if you don't immediately vote Yes. And when you first log in you're sent to the voting page. And so it's a simple math equation.

And it needed to be plainly stated.

Jul 28, 17 / Vir 13, 01 16:27 UTC

Can't say you're wrong, @Travin. ;-)))
But the real question is: does it matter to anyone?

Jul 28, 17 / Vir 13, 01 21:17 UTC

@Protean as I mentioned, when a new citizen first logs in they are automatically redirected to the voting page. And every subsequent time one logs in, it redirects to this page. People don't need to click anything.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 01:14 UTC

p.s. per voting regulations, decrees, and their limits, anyone that did not vote during the voting period did not fulfill their duty as a citizen so they are deemed non-citizen. So if someone registered a long time ago and never voted they have effectively abstained from the vote. But since the only option is to vote Yes, abstaining is the same as voting no. 

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 06:43 UTC

how about a thread on how many threads have been created that complain about the constitution and the topic of voting. an someone do a percentage on that. Then add that to the responses by anyone in power, divide it by those who actually care take that answer, set it aside, and then create another thread on this answer.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 07:21 UTC

I understood the video as saying if you look at the page it records you as having taken part in the vote,  and that it records you as a No vote unless you say otherwise.  

So, by deduction, that would indicate that if you don't ever visit the page then you have never been logged as taking part and so that person cannot be counted as taking part in the election.

The problem with your math is that we don't know how many people are active on the site to have visited the page to be part of the vote count.  

All we can say (by using averages) is that approx. 57000 people (+/- 25000) signed up in the voting period and that we can only guarantee that these people took part in the vote - For all we know most of the 167837 signed up by January could have left and not said anything.

Even taking this at the maximum average value we can say that 82000 new signups ticked the box,  that still leaves 16000 unaccounted for from the previous signups.

What's more likely to believe is that people are willing to accept the document and change it later but are unwilling to place comments in the forum currently as the theme tends to be to "bully" anyone who disagrees with the negative points raised on this subject.

But to confirm that we would need to know the number of people who log in daily but don't comment here.

Looking at the daily blog creations I would say that this is more than likely!

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 08:03 UTC

@Buck Rogers

Excepting the fact that this process has switched from ratifying a draft constitution to accepting the Constitution as terms of citizenship. Leadership has decided to "continue the voting", but there is no voting. It's only "I Accept", and we know that not to be a voting process.

Which means if a citizen didn't vote during the voting period, it's counted as No, or at least Abstain, which doesn't exist so it's also a No vote. Strictly speaking, that is if laws, decrees, etc. hold any weight or credibility at all (jury is still out on that) in this process, the official vote to ratify has ended. Bolstered by the ongoing changes Lena spoke of. If you wish to be tripped up in a the ambiguous interchangeable language and concepts of either voting for or ratifying of, be my guest. But official language remains unchanged.

The voting has ended and despite what you may believe, the draft Constitution, for all intents and purposes, has already been adopted by the leadership. In direct contradiction to all applicable documents on the matter. Perhaps you don't yet see or understand it, but there is no rule of law here. It's only whatever they decide is in their best interests.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 08:11 UTC

p.s. forgot to point out... the entire purpose of this vote was to ratify a constitution. And it wasn't ratified and still is not ratified, by their own official requirements. Since it was never ratified, you can't legitimately exclude people as being non-citizens for not voting for or against it. it isn't in legal effect, it didn't get enough votes, it has no legal authority until it is officially ratified.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 08:43 UTC

Travin, You cannot be a citizen until you agree to a nations constitution by definition of what a citizen is:


"In general, A member of a free city or jural society, (civitas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties."

From Black's Law dictionary.

We should not be getting confused between the Colloquial term:

"an inhabitant of a particular town or city."

Oxford Dictionary of English

This is the term that seems to have been used here to define us all as members or virtual inhabitant of the Asgardia forum.  Not legal citizens of the Asgardia Nation.

As they have actually said a number of times that you will still be able to be a part of the forum the forum community regardless of your acceptance or not you cannot say that they are taking away your citizenship (as per colloquial definition) ,  only those that do are getting legal citizen rights (as per legal definition).  

If you are talking about a legal subject you cannot use a common use definition of the word as a standard.  

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 08:54 UTC

@Buck Rogers

Unfortunately, you don't seem to understand how law and legal systems work.

The draft of the Constitution was put to a vote to ratify, to make it an enforceable document and legal framework for Asgardia and it did not pass. In fact it has been soundly rejected. Therefore we have no Constitution. It's not a legal document, so it cannot be used to define, grant or deny citizenship.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 09:16 UTC, Total number of edits: 2 times

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 09:31 UTC

Sorry Tarvin,

You seen to be agreeing with me at the same time as trying to argue with me.

You are correct I am not understanding what the point you are trying to make is.  
As Lena said in her video we will make mistakes.  

I think the mistake was trying to place a fixed period on the acceptance and not an affixed number as is common in most constitutional documents.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 09:54 UTC

@Buck Rogers

If you can't understand my very simple and straightforward points, either you don't want to or just aren't prepared to understand. Forgive me but I can't help you with either.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 10:13 UTC


You have presented speculation as fact this is what I do not agree with.  
You are presenting figures and your results as fact, however as I said we are all missing data and only making assumptions.  

Making an outlandish claim that everyone who has ever registered on the site has taken part In the vote can only be an assumption.

We could equally assume that only people that signed up after January have taken part in the vote, and that those before are inactive as they don't comment:

So that's:

Voted No = 19732

Voted Yes = 98480

286049 - 167837( provided in the constitution) = 118212

Asgardia, 83% of your citizens ACCEPTED this Constitution draft.

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 10:15 UTC

@Buck Rogers

With all due respect, you're clearly not paying attention.

  Last edited by:  Travin McKain (Asgardian)  on Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 10:16 UTC, Total number of edits: 1 time

Jul 29, 17 / Vir 14, 01 10:25 UTC


This seems to be your response to most people who disagree with your views, they are wrong, they are not paying attention.  

Still we cannot change the fact that your initial post is based on assumption and presented as fact..