The Presidency of Apolytonia (Campaign Thread)

[FrostyBoy]

Hm..

Are the ministers the experts, or the citizens? Will either of you go weak because the citizens disagree with what ministers are advising?

[Ninot]

Do you support building up for a war aginst France immediately after the war with America? What do you prepose we do with the defeated Americans? (this may already have been asked, I havent read every post )

This is a question to be answered after our war with USA be done. Personnaly, I would have us completely rid of the Americans. I think it was Uber who put it best, we need that land, and pretty bad too. Even a vasal state would be a pain, thus I would like to stay in the tech race another way, but if it is neccesary.....

But once that war is done, I suggest we take a second look at the world, and not instantly barrel towards war with another nation.

So I ask the candidates, if your SMC firmly opposed a warplan that you back, would you give him direction of the field, or insist on ramming through ... oh, lets say, purely hypothetically ( ), Plan Eagle.

If such an impasse came up, I would do exactly what I did last night with Trips insistance on a sneak attack, I would put it to an official poll. The people would decide who has the better idea, and that would be the decision maker.

Following that up: Should the SMC choose to ignore the people, would you disregaurd his orders to proceed with whatever you deemed right?

If the SMC was bullheaded enough to completely disreguard the will of the nation and request everything go his way, I would immediately request his impeachment for disservice to his nation. If he refuses to abide by an official poll, that WOULD be the only way to go.

Another follow up: Is there a % majority that will cause you to ignore the SMC, or is 50.1% enough? Clarify the EXACT circumstance that it would be acceptable to disobey ANY Minister, now that we really get into it.

This is a good question. If it were any less than a 66% decision, I would allow the SMC (or any other minister) liberties. 50%+1 is not decisive enough to form a firm decision. In such a case, for whichever minister it would apply to, I would completly allow them to make their own decisions.

[Ninot]

Are the ministers the experts, or the citizens? Will either of you go weak because the citizens disagree with what ministers are advising?

The Ministers would be democractically elected by the people. Their decisions WOULD matter. However, the same people who democractically elected them have every right to have their will performed. If they should decide that the minister they voted in is no longer performing their will, than who am I to argue?

But in all reality, unless two candidates to a job are identical, how easy will it be to have a minister who is not performing the will of the people? 1: it doesnt make sense, 2: it doesnt make political sense if the minister wants to be reelected to anything. And if they do a good job despite their defiance? well that would mean shambles to this democractic system, because that would mean ministers would much less listen to the peoples voices.

[Jon Shafer]

In some cases, people become elected to positions unopposed. Does that mean that they're experts? No, it means they ran for office. This is the people's game, not the ministers. It is both the ministers and the President/VPs job to represent them, not to make decisions based upon what they feel is right. It's their job to try to convince the public why their way is the right way. If the public is convinced, then there isn't a problem. If it's not then that shouldn't be the task that is taken. I feel that if aroudn 60% or greater of the people officially disagree (through a poll) with the course of action a minister wants to take, then it's my job to go with the will of the people.

[ThePlagueRat]

I think Trip will get my vote, once again... maybe?
If only he could stop agitating for this US-like "democracy" !
(I'd rather see it done in an ancient Greek manner)

Well, I've got a question for you both:
- Should we start building libraries or temples after the coming war?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by ThePlagueRat
I think Trip will get my vote, once again... maybe?
If only he could stop agitating for this US-like "democracy" !
(I'd rather see it done in an ancient Greek manner)

I'm just relating to something that works (almost ). That doesn't mean I want things exactly the same way, I'm just using it as a guide, since we can look at it and know everything about it (not always the case for Greece or Rome), and how well it works.

P.S. Thanks for the vote... maybe.

Well, I've got a question for you both:
- Should we start building libraries or temples after the coming war?

Definitely temples. They will allow us to expand earlier (fewer shields), as well as to make more happy people (without a larger garrison). This will help our science more than libraries can at this point. Libraries = the most effective under Republic with a lot of Marketplaces.

[UnOrthOdOx]

I skimmed over everything and didn't notice this question, so if I missed it, I apologize.

Ninot, since we are all VERY aware of Trip's feelings on this issue, what are your feelings toward Plan Eagle? And would you rather destroy or trim America?

[Sheik]

This is more of question for Ninot because Trip has already made his views clear on this issue.

How do you feel about the Judicial System? If elected will you work to get this ammendment written up and added to the constitution?

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Captain

OTOH, if the new election amendment passes, Trip will not be able to run for President again after this one so the 3rd election will be between two (or more) new Presidential candidates.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the amendment states that one person may only hold office two times consecutively, thus if Ninot wins this time around, both Ninot and Trip would be able to run next time. If not and somehow neither can run then, I ask you how long would it be before we run out of candidates? Those (like me) who can't easily make turnchats, or do not have webpages to update etc?

[UnOrthOdOx]

MrWIA brings up an interesting point. Are we to now REQUIRE the Pres to make and update a webpage? This could seriously limit our prospective candidates.

I think Captain was referring to if Trip wins, the amandment passes, he would not be allowed to run again, so we would have two candidates who are unproven at president.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Gracias, UnOrthOdOx. This clarifies things (if this is what was meant). We may have multiple candidates now, but soon enough we will not, and we cannot limit those candidates who CAN run for positions like the Presdency.

[Jon Shafer]

Phew, 100 replies.

I'm working something out with Sn00py and Gramphos to create an 'official' website. The President and Ministers will only be required to submit text and pictures (to help illustrate what they're describing), while the 'webmaster' will update the site and all that kind of fun stuff.

[EDIT]I need to practice my grammar. [/EDIT]

[UnOrthOdOx]

It was turning into a campaign issue, that is why I brought it up. A general website would be best.

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
It was turning into a campaign issue, that is why I brought it up. A general website would be best.

Trying to work out a deal with Sn00ps, Gramps and Dan right now.

[GodKing]

Cool. How do you propose to have the site maintained? By a historian type of position, by the prez, by Dan, gramphos & whomever they decide? I do understand that much would depend on how it was set up initially, which hasn't yet happened.... Just kinda curious I guess. I do like the idea.