Amendment: Election Standards

[MrWhereItsAt]

I thought that poll was for max # of consecutive terms in one position also - based on all the discussion beforehand that was certainly the case.

I love how all the Constitutional decisions here need to be repolled for some reason or another.

Ah, Constitutions, group polling methods...

I have SOO much ammunition if I ever felt the need.

Oh BTW I have no probs with your first idea, Trip. (Just to be at least lightly supportive)

[Nubclear]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
I thought that poll was for max # of consecutive terms in one position also - based on all the discussion beforehand that was certainly the case.

I love how all the Constitutional decisions here need to be repolled for some reason or another.

Ah, Constitutions, group polling methods...

I have SOO much ammunition if I ever felt the need.

Oh BTW I have no probs with your first idea, Trip. (Just to be at least lightly supportive)

We should create a forum dedicated to polls. And a subforum dedicated to consitutional polls.

But I agree with NYE. If you have a question asking "Are you left wing?" and then the possible answers are "Yes, I am a communist. Yes I am a stainlist, Yes I am a maoist, Yes I am a liberal, Yes I am a democrat, Yes i am a socialist, Yes but im something else, No im right wing", yes will probably get the most votes.

The results are extremly skewed in favor of a certain option, and there should be a (yes, you knew this was coming) REPOLL.

A repoll would allow us to main our democratic standards as the opinion of the people would actually stand out without bias. Instead of the poll with the optinos I mentioned above, why not just have "Yes, No"?

[Robber Baron]

The only question I'd have here is, should the President and VP handle the election poll? Is that open to fraud? (Kinda like having your brother's cronies run the election in a key state, where the vote was basically tied ....)
Maybe the judiciary (assuming we set one up) could oversee the election.

[Aggie]

Good idea, though i suggest that nye's suggestion is adopted. The purpose of term limits should be to prevent somebody from staying forever. This whole thread(largely) shows how a judicial branch is useful, since they could review the initial poll etc. By the way when are the next elections.
Aggie

[Captain]

I think the consensus so far is that nye is correct. the initial poll was misleading and many of the voters thought they were voting for limits on CONSECUTIVE TERMS, not total limits.

I believe the majority of posts in that polling thread also indicated that voters also qualified their votes on term limits to mean CONSECUTIVE terms.

therefore, Trip, I think you should modify the amendment so that it reflects this. once we vote on the amendment, if it passes, it will be Constitutional and thus overrule the faulty results on the last poll on the subject. Otherwise, if you pass this amendment in, then it will only reinforce the original faulty poll results.

I should also point out at this time that the existing Constitution was rushed into existence, including the polling standards (which IMHO should have been a separate amendment). Considering that the Constitution was very vague and unclear on some things - such as whether the polling standards made the old or new poll invalid if conducted before (or was it after) 3 weeks was up. The President came speedily with a clarfication, but by that time, the majority of votes had ALREADY been cast. Meaning that many people likely had their own interpretation that was different from the President's and had voted for thier interpretation, not the correct (unknown at the time) one.

Therefore, I advocate the creation of the Judiciary to resolve such matters of law and Constitution and the appointment/election of judges who will seek out the Spirit of the Constitution rather than the exact words.

Until such a judiciary agrees on the invalidity of the term limiting poll, I think Trip should take into consideration the majority of posts given here arguing for the modification to the amendment. Thus, once modified and amended, the Constitution will take precedence.

btw, seeing how nye has no political affiliation and has a pretty good grasp of the rules, I nominate him for a judge (whenever we sort out the rules for our judiciary)

[Spiffor]

I also considered this poll to be about # of terms in a row.

As this was pretty confusing, I suggest we take this kind of decisions step by step :
step #1 "should there be any limitation to holding positions ?" (said in good English )
step #2 "should there be a limitation on the absolute number of terms, or on consecutive terms ?". This poll would be held only once poll #1 is done, and only if "yes" won in poll #1
step #3 "how many terms ?". Same thing, only when poll #2 is done (poll #2 could also be a grouping poll)

I'm a supporter of the grouping method, and I don't feel it rigs the poll (or it's extremely marginal). However, Grouping system is good when we have 2 steps to make, not 3.

There was a tremendous confusion about the term limiting polls, so I think we should deem them invalid, and start on a good foundation as soon as possible, when we have still time. Currently, the question of limiting terms isn't an emergency. Better do it now than in a rush.

Any comments ?

Edit :

Originally posted by Trip 18-06-2002

The poll only refers to the # of terms in a row someone is allowed to be elected.

I see I was not alone to be confused

[Captain]

The current CODE OF LAWS (popularly referred to as the Constitution) states:

Length of Office Terms:
All office terms shall last one month. A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it. If a member is elected three times into the same office, that member must run for a different office in his fourth term, or not run at all.

Indicating 3 is the maximum number of CONSECUTIVE terms in office. There is currently no total limit on terms.

This amendment, currently worded, would change that to a total limit of 2.

Otherwise, I'm fine with it.

[LordImpact]

As I was not around during the first elections, I would like to know if nominations have to be seconded or not. If they do I would like to second History Guy's nomination for Historian. He has proven to be an active and capable member of this community and I have not seen much from our current historian.

[Captain]

So Trip, gonna modify that amendment or keep it the way it is?

I have to say I think you'll get more votes to ratify it if you modify it so there is no TOTAL limit to the terms rather than the 2 term TOTAL limit there is in the proposed amendment now.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Captain
So Trip, gonna modify that amendment or keep it the way it is?

I have to say I think you'll get more votes to ratify it if you modify it so there is no TOTAL limit to the terms rather than the 2 term TOTAL limit there is in the proposed amendment now.

Alright, I'll change it. It won't be just an amendment for elections, but oh well.

[Captain]

You are a man of the people Trip!

[Trevman]

Why term limits?? Our best civ players should be aloud to run as much as they want within the confines of the current code of laws. I don't see any need for this amendment.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Trevman
Why term limits?? Our best civ players should be aloud to run as much as they want within the confines of the current code of laws. I don't see any need for this amendment.

The people already voted to have a limit (in a row), so that's what I'm going to put in the amendment. If you disagree, you can always start a poll on it.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Oh, but don't forget that poll is invalide unless it's held sufficiently after the first on (four weeks, I think).

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Oh, but don't forget that poll is invalide unless it's held sufficiently after the first on (four weeks, I think).

Two weeks, TWO WEEKS my friend.