Presidential Poll

[shade]

looks like the tie is broken here(or how long can there still be voted??)

My only hope and request for our next president is that he will follow the advise I'll give him when I post the history of our civ in 1100AD...those little things might tripple our strength within a single term, but they have to be done with caution.
(already 1 hint: Gunpowder in research+ Leo's almost finished+ Warriors )

Shade

[-Jrabbit]

Shadowlord -- Very nearly a concession speech! (and a gracious one at that) In any case, I applaud you on your aggressive campaign and wish you success in whatever position you win for the coming month.

On reforms -- I feel confident that the ppl need have no fear of a "Hitler" situation, and further, it's important that we keep the Democracy Game open to newcomers -- much like your own campaign, eh?


The one reform that I would like to see --

Ppl may run for only one office per month!

I have kept quiet on this issue until now. This month is the first time it has come up, and all indications are that the situation is benign. However, if carried to extremes, it should be clear that there is much potential for abuse. Running for election should NOT be like hedging your bets on the stock market! I know of NOWHERE that allows candidacy for multiple offices.

I say: Let us stop this practice now, before it becomes a problem!
I say: Choose the office you want and take your chances!

/

I also have a couple further comments based on Shadowlord's recent post.

The post of Historian carries no possible corrupting influence

Comment -- As far as you can tell!!

...we have an excellent Historian now.

Comment -- Your Historian bows to the will of the ppl regarding any proposed term limit exemption. We're about to enter my 2nd elective month, so there's plenty of time to decide.

[Shadowlord]

Actually, in the 2000 elections in the USA, Joe Lieberman ran for both Vice President and for re-election in Congress (in Connecticut).

And the idea was that, if he was elected to both, he'd resign from congress, and a special election would be held to replace him, or something.

Just thought I'd point that out.

But I agree with you that this could get out of hand. Perhaps the new President should enact a law that each person can only run for a maximum of two offices per term.

Also, the way this election was run, the President poll went up, but the City Planner one didn't, and the results of the President poll decide the results of the City Planner one. However, in the future, we are likely to see 3-way races, and we won't be able to do that.

What I suggest is that we have all the election posts up at once, and after the voting is over, people who have been elected to more than one office must resign from all but one. The runner-ups would take the offices the winner resigned from. But since that could lead to the runner-up now having more than one office, he'd have to resign one as well... It could take a few days after the elections end to sort out who is in what position, if we have a lot of people running for multiple offices. If it does get really out of hand, we can always forbid running for more than one office, but right now, we don't have enough people to make that a serious concern yet. Until we start seeing three-way electoral races and almost no uncontested positions, I don't think we'll have any problems.

[-Jrabbit]

GET SERIOUS, SHADOWLORD!


*(-Jrabbit, looking forward to a month of spirited debate with Shadowlord)*

Perhaps the new President should enact a law that each person can only run for a maximum of two offices per term.

Screw that! Just pick ONE office and run for it.

What Lieberman did was essentially to participate once each in 2 different venues (one national election, one state election). Maginally ethical (at best). Would he be permitted to simultaneously run for the Senate and the House from Connecticut?
I THINK NOT!!

They're only one-month terms, for crying out loud.
If you don't have the balls to pick one office and run for it, you don't deserve to lead!

/

[Shadowlord]

I'm not going to argue with you - We've presented both sides of the coin, and now, we should put this up to a vote, and let the People decide how many offices someone should be able to run for at once, rather than having the Historian and City Planner-elect (Unless 7 people come out of nowhere and vote for me for President) arguing over this issue. I doubt I'd be able to change your views on this subject, besides which, I don't want to.

Personally, I do think that limiting people to running for one office per term would be a good thing, but (1) I was playing devil's advocate and taking the conservative side this time, and (2) I ran for two offices last term, in order to compete with my opponent, who was also running for two offices.

However, at the time I announced my candidacy for two offices, I hadn't considered the possibility of limiting candidates to running for one office at a time, and it wasn't until you brought the subject up that I realized how much simpler things would be if that were the case.

Now, here's the conflict. I believe that elections would be much simpler if candidates were limited to running for only one office, but that doing that could cause problems - For instance, in the last election, if we'd been restricted to running for one office at a time, and if Cavebear had still challenged me for the Presidency, we'd be lacking a City Planner for the next term. If not, I would have won the Presidency unopposed, and Cavebear would have become CP unopposed. Instead, this time, those two races were effectively combined into one, presenting both candidates with opposition and ensuring that we would not have an empty cabinet position after the elections.

[-Jrabbit]

I raised this issue to spark debate, and I salute Shadowlord for joining in. I agree that election reforms should be discussed and/or polled early in May to resolve the issues that have arisen over our first few months as a nation.

Regarding the current dual-candidacy issue, I have faith that, if there ware 2 Prez candidates and no one for City Planner, someone from among our ppl would have stepped forward to fill the void -- especially if they thought they could run unopposed

Nature Abhors A Vaccuum!

[civman2000]

such rare moment of anger from our historian!

[cavebear]

I have to admit that I think running for 2 offices was, shall we say, an "imperfectly happy outcome".

So perhaps I should explain. I announced for re-election as City-Planner. Then, President Shade decided to retire. Waiting a bit and then seeing only Shadowlord running (and by that I mean "only", not "merely"), I decided to seek the job. I was happy to have Shade for another term, but with his withdrawal changed things.

I thought, without saying it specifically, that my announcement to seek the Presidency superceded my intent to seek the City-Planner position.

Then, President Shade suggested to Shadowlord that he seek the City-Planner position to gain experience (and Shadowlord agreed). So then, I thought both positions were uncontested. Vice President Shaka Naldur had a Soloman-like revelation and set up the election to allow the citizens to consider both Shadowlord and I for both positions since they were both otherwise uncontested.

A very elegant and fully-empowering opportunity for the voters, in my opinion.

Hail Shaka!

It was an odd situation, and not too likely to arise again, so Shaka's decision seems a good solution.

I do agree, however, that such a situation should be allowed to arise again. Any of us should be able to run for any position, but not 2 at once. I know that wasn't my intention, and I am sure it wasn't Shadowlord's either.

So I don't expect the situation to re-occur, but I do suggest that no one should run for 2 offices at the same time in the future. We don't need to make hard rules about it, but we should keep the general restriction in mind. Let circumstances dictate how we will react in the future.

[cavebear]

Originally posted by -Jrabbit
I raised this issue to spark debate, and I salute Shadowlord for joining in. I agree that election reforms should be discussed and/or polled early in May to resolve the issues that have arisen over our first few months as a nation.

Regarding the current dual-candidacy issue, I have faith that, if there ware 2 Prez candidates and no one for City Planner, someone from among our ppl would have stepped forward to fill the void -- especially if they thought they could run unopposed

Nature Abhors A Vaccuum!

Your point is well-taken, and as you can see from my above post, I agree. This just occured by happenstance, but it does point out a potential problem for future elections.

You have the very good habit of raising important issues.

[-Jrabbit]

[ixnay]

Congrats, cavebear!
As your science advisor I look forward to working with you.

[Shaka Naldur]

the poll is already closed,
we have a new president!!!!!!