It looks great, @BloodyClean. 

As for those who wish to review a constitution which is focused on a more direct-democracy system, here's the link to Skieswanne-Ghodrati Document, which is now complete. 

@skieswanne 

Awesome! I've been waiting for this draft :-) I'll take a look when I get a chance. 

BloodyClean

Well done LoreZyra.

I love how you've summarised the direction there. It makes complete sense.

Keep up the good work. 

@BloodyClean

Only if you wish, you don't have to. 

I however think LoreZyra's draft will prevail, since his draft has received a bit more exposure. 

@skieswanne - A very clear and precise definition. Good work guys.

This is actually a mixture of direct democracy and representative democracy. You have done a good job of avoiding a lot of the worries that are generally brought up when people mention direct democracy.  It's close to one of the best compromises without losing the essence of direct democracy that I have ever read.  I understand that everyone wanted to keep the format of the original as this is what was needed to ensure that our suggestions could be correlated with the original, however I would love to see it broken out into only the necessities and worded as general principles. I think it has the basis of a great constitution. 

You worried about one constitution getting more airplay than another - dont think like that. All suggestions are good at this stage.  The reality is that there is not a lot of difference in the outcome of the 2 documents excepting that @Lore has tighter definitions of the members of government and allows for a little broader powers in the leaders' positions.  Essentially they are both trying to express a method of allowing the people to choose their governance and stop those in positions of responsibility from "becoming a mafia" (not a very constitutional sentence :-D ).

A couple of miniscule points.... (1) a body "initiates" a process (eg. a referendum) not "initialises" it.  you have this mis-wording a lot throughout the document. (2) there are a number of gender specific terms in the governance section. I noted that you tried to remove the gender or human specific terms which is sensible as this is a statement of broad principles and structure in which that type of specificity is out of place.  You just missed a couple.

Nicely done and it answers a lot of the questions @bloodyclean and I were debating over the last few days about the viability and controls in direct democracy and representative democracy....... so now you have to read it @bloodyclean :-D

@bigred and @skieswanne

Haha, I definitely read it :) I was pleasantly surprised, and @bigred is completely correct in the second paragraph. I don't think one is more valuable than the other at this stage at all, and it's really going to come down to what the Admin/Legal/Asgardian team decides to put forth as an official draft revision to their original constitution. I agree completely that the key difference between the Skieswanne constitution and the one that @LoreZyra and I have been working on is truly just the minor restrictions on the election of members of government and a little bit more power (which I would argue is a good thing, when managed well).

Anyway, great work to everyone who's submitted inputs to the constitution. Can't wait to see what the official revision looks like.

BloodyClean

P.S., @skieswanne, one more miniscule point, the plural of referendum is referenda :)

I just want to clarify that the lack of exposure of my document is my fault, not LoreZyra's. LoreZyra is actually very kind of including my draft amongst the choices to vote upon. I am to blame for the un-popularity of my document - during the first week of the poll, my document was actually not complete (since I was at work), which made it hard for me to bring exposure to its content and ideas. 

Even though I oppose the idea of discriminating candidates based on a specific qualification (because I have personally had a very bad experience with a similar system, except mine involved physics instead of engineering) I personally find LoreZyra's draft pretty good, though I was hoping to see "the right to live" & "the right to privacy" in the rights sections, along with something similar to my Article 35. Splinter Nation Provisions. But I have to agree that those are pretty much the only points with which I disagree. Other than that, you guys are right though. Both of our constitutions are major improvements over the original. 

@BloodyClean

"one more miniscule point, the plural of referendum is referenda :)"

Hm, you're right! As the author of physics theories I should have realised this (the plural of quantum is quanta). Thanks for the reminder!

@RickySickles(Asgardian) on 6 June 2017, 1:54 a.m.

A Democratic Technocracy just promotes another type of discrimination . That of socalled people who are smarter then the guy who busts his rump. I'v known many people of that mind set over the years ,and I say a good part of them lack common sense when I comes to the really hard things in life . They mostly put their own interests ahead of whats right for the majority

Do you believe people with certifications and experience would NOT be sympathetic to the needs of the public layman??? In the model I proposed, regular citizens are elected to parliament and even the powerful Council is appointed by the citizen parliament with citizens. Your argument that the "guy who busts his rump" cannot be elected is flawed.  
I invite you and everyone to read chapter eight of the proposal Constitution.  https://raw.githubusercontent.com/.../Asgardia... 

can you to share as online editable text the documents as google docs or drive or github txtdoc?, I was reading the draft of the constitution and disapproved some of the texts, such as the use of the terms of monarchy, inheritance. I also continue to observe that they take in a fanciful manner many issues, such as what is understood as annexation of the terrestrial territories, and there is no anticipation of an evolution of the same structure and organization to give solidity to the project, from the beginning silmple, as we say today in Together, we organize tomorrow, we define representative offices tomorrow, and we will grow until this association is capable of representing common interests in the international community. They speak as if there were already satellites and space stations, embassies or free Asgardian territories. As repeated in the comments, sounds like premeditated failure of a monarchical dictatorship. I am concerned that there is no talk of sustainability of a community in diaspora, and if of inheritance of offices, ecology without territory, things that are not and probably do not exist for 5 or 30 years. And even more that this tool does not allow a direct dialogue between members even from the same geographic area, personal messages, or do not help locate close affiliates. i am no opposed to the project but many things shoud be optimized

[kseltar at google mail]

@LoreZyra

"Do you believe people with certifications and experience would NOT be sympathetic to the needs of the public layman??? "

Yes, absolutely. I have spent enough time at the mercy of "certified" people to know that RickySickles is right. 

After a while, "certified" people band together. They declare themselves experts, and decide what's mainstream and what's fringe. This is only the first step. The next step: they make the topic of their expertise hard to comprehend by mere laymen, so to discourage underdog-type competition. Remember that those on the top are not always keen on giving up their positions, or on having to re-think their fields of expertise. As such, they soon form a closed circle of people whose only purpose is to protect their own interests. So, they become increasingly deaf to laymen's inputs, and at one point they reject any suggestions based on excuses such as "the proponent has no qualifications", "the proponent just doesn't understand our field of expertise", etc. 

I've experienced this first-hand in Physics. With both my ideas in subatomic particles structure and my discoveries on Dark Matter. Even a friend of mine, dr. Delbert Larson, PhD, has experienced the same. He had a PhD so mainstream physicists couldn't reject his ideas based on "no qualification". Do you know what they did instead? They rejected his idea based on the facf that he "had made too much suggestion", basically they found him annoying. 

Yes, many guys high-up are NOT sympathetic to laymen suggestions. 

@bigred

Thank you for the review, it's good to finally get some feedback. 

:)

So will they give us time to read the modified constitution draft before voting?

Good job, both of your options are great (although I lean more towards the technocratic side).
Let's just cross our fingers that your extraordinary work will be taken into account for the vote on Asgard 1st. 

I find that the Skieswanne-Ghodrati Constitution seems the fairest one yet. The simple fact that it was heavily influenced by other's suggestions seems to have made it, in my opinion, quite agreeable. Many sections of the document well take into account the possible future needs of society rather than being based simply on what makes sense from today's standpoint. It also integrates many aspects of direct democracy, which i personally feel is a nice touch. One thing I do think could use some revision is that it states that the author of a request for independence as an independent nation from Asgardia is only required to be 16 years of age. While i do agree with the granting of many rights, including the right to vote and such before the age of 18, how young is too young to lead a splinter nation? In any case, I do hope that anyone coming across this comment will read over each proposed constitution carefully before voting in the poll regarding which one they favor. Regardless of orientation, it is important we make sure our decisions are well informed.