Amendment: Election Standards

[Jon Shafer]

Alright, this is one of my first three initial amendments I planned on authoring. This should be a quick discussion, since it's just laying out rules and stuff for elections (since we don't have any).

Here's my proposed amendment:

This amendment is an attempt to rectify the potential loopholes of governmental elections, and to lay out basic rules.

Each election takes place exactly one month after the previous election. A Pre-Election thread must be created at least a week before the elections are set to take place. All elections must last 5 days. All canidates must announce their canidacy before the elections begin, or else he will be excluded from the ballot. Once the 5 days has passed, then the new or reelected ministers will be admitted to their offices.

The elections must be conducted by either the current President, or the current Vice-President. If they are unavailable at the time of the election, then someone may be selected by a majority vote among the Ministers to conduct the elections.

The winner of the election is determined by a simple majority vote: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a run-off between the tied canidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

A person may run for only one office per election. One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other.

'Joint candidates' of more than 1 person are allowed, but there may only be 2 people maximum running as a team. The limit for teammates for Vice-President is 3, while the office of President does not allow any form of team to run.

That's it. Not too painful for you anti-rule types, eh? Any other suggestions for additions are welcome.

[LordImpact]

How about in the case of a tie? I know it's probably not going to happen, but what would be the procedure?

NO RECOUNTS!!! AND PREGNANT CHADS DON'T COUNT!!!

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by LordImpact
How about in the case of a tie? I know it's probably not going to happen, but what would be the procedure?

NO RECOUNTS!!! AND PREGNANT CHADS DON'T COUNT!!!

Good one!
I'll edit it and add that in.

[notyoueither]

Suggest 'A person may only be elected twice consecutively to the same office.' Unless you wish to say that you can never be President again if you are reelected in a few days.

[Sheik]

I would vote for this.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Suggest 'A person may only be elected twice consecutively to the same office.' Unless you wish to say that you can never be President again if you are reelected in a few days.

It just says that you can only be elected twice to the same office. That doesn't mean I have to win consecutively... I could leave, come back in a year, run for President again and take up the office. IIRC, people voted for a term limit over no limit, and 2 terms had the highest number of votes. I can't go against the will of the people.

[notyoueither]

Yes. I agree about the limits. But I don't think it was clear they were saying twice ever. I think I brought up the same question before and some responses were to the effect that this only meant 2 terms before a break.

[Jon Shafer]

Check out my poll here on the subject. A pathetic amount (33 people) voted, so public opinion may have changed since then. I may make another poll about it once 2 weeks has expired.

[notyoueither]

That is an excellent example of bias due to an over whelming number of options for limits and only one option for no limits. Put the question fairly, limits or no limits, yes/no abstain. Follow up with a poll for the number of terms if limits are accepted.

What you did is let the yes voters decide the number of terms to limit people to, even though more people voted for no limits than any other option. Therefore, the no voters were disenfranchised from the decision of how many terms. Am I making sense?

BTW. civman2000 i would assume that this poll is about how many times someone can run for any position...though it should only count for consecutive terms. Panag felt the same, as did I. I was asking slightly different questions than I remember though.

[notyoueither]

And you yourself The poll only refers to the # of terms in a row someone is allowed to be elected... Very confusing. Many of the voters probably thought along these lines and that someone could lead for 2 terms, take a break and then come back and lead again.

[Kloreep]

I wasn't here when the game started up, so I didn't vote in the mentioned polls. However, if a new poll was taken, I would vote to only have a limit on consecutive terms as well.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by notyoueither
That is an excellent example of bias due to an over whelming number of options for limits and only one option for no limits. Put the question fairly, limits or no limits, yes/no abstain. Follow up with a poll for the number of terms if limits are accepted.

Do you know how the grouping system works in polls? Unlimited got 15 votes, limited got 18, and a 2-term limit was the highest voted for within group 2. Therefore, it was decided that there would be a 2 term limit.

In the actual question, I inquired "How many terms should each official be allowed to be up for election?" which is fairly definitive. In the question I never mentioned in a row... I was only referring to another poll which asked that question. I'm simply asking "how many times they're allowed up".

[notyoueither]

Yes. I am aware of how the grouping method works. What I maintain is that ganging 8 options into a group vs 1 in the other group is biased. It leads people to compromise among the 8 and avoid the extreme of the 1. Not everyone is going to, or should be expected to, analyse every poll at length before they vote.

I also maintain that it forces people who favour the single 'no' option to chose between supporting their real choice or effecting the outcome of the group of 8 options.

Unbalanced. Unfair. Even though you yourself set up the poll and you were not in favour of limits (I think) the poll was still weighted to come out the way it did.

It was also unfortunately worded. It actually says that you are limited to 2 terms period in any office. I and everyone else know that was not your intent, however that is what it says. The qualification of 'in any given office' is missing.

Fair and accurate polls require clear, balanced, easy to understand options.

[Jon Shafer]

To be honest, I was going for no limits, and wasn't really biased towards limits...
In any case, I'll just make an amendment discussion for the whole thing and get it straightened out once and for all. I definitely feel that amendment polls need to be 'yes/no' polls, but that poll was created a very long time ago before any standards were created.

[notyoueither]

Your 'side' will do better in a well constructed poll. Yes, it was a long time ago (relatively).