Amendment III: Election Standards

[Jon Shafer]

Without further complaints, I put this amendment up for a vote. 2/3 to pass:

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 candidates must announce their candidacy 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 candidates (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.

Question:
Is this amendment fit for acceptance?

Options:
Yes, No

Expiration:
4 Days, July 11th 2002

[LordImpact]

Looks alright to these eyes

dont trust that... I have 20/47 vision

[notyoueither]

Re: Amendment III: Election Standards

Originally posted by Trip
'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.

OK, OK, OK... wait on this one.

As far a ministerial votes are concerned... I vote yes provided that shared posts have 1 indivisable vote.

If they are an even number and they split evenly, no vote. If they are an odd number, the majority of their votes count as 1 vote.

[LordImpact]

I'll second that

[Aggie]

Unfortunately though I like most of the amendment, I had to vote no and here is why
1) The following paragraph was too vague;
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 candidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

Did you mean a plurality, so if we had three people running and the results are
a-5
b-7
c-6
Does b win or do we have a runoff between b and c.

Under what circumstances do the ministers vote on a winner?
These are too vague for an amendment to the constitution and could cause large headaches further down the road. Under these rules(due to the term majority) a loser could contest an election and a court would have no choice but to support him, unfortunately no further procedure is spelled out and our country could be in deep uncertainty. We all know we DON'T want a contested election.

2) I don't like the idea of joint candidates. If ministers need help then they can appoint deputies, but one person must be in charge or chaos can be created. Also we need one person to blame or credit.(This is largely for elections)

If these things are changed I could see myself supporting an amendment like this. We clearly need one like this, unfortunately this is not the amendment we need.
Respectfully
Aggie

[notyoueither]

Aggie has a point. Joint positions could result in chaos if the two do not see eye to eye on most every issue, and cannot decide on a common front in such cases.

Tacit approval of the history guys is OK, they do not do much (other than the most important stuff for the feel of the game). However, enshrining chaos in the constitution is another thing.

[Jon Shafer]

Re: Re: Amendment III: Election Standards

Originally posted by notyoueither
OK, OK, OK... wait on this one.

As far a ministerial votes are concerned... I vote yes provided that shared posts have 1 indivisable vote.

If they are an even number and they split evenly, no vote. If they are an odd number, the majority of their votes count as 1 vote.

Each office = 1 vote. Therefore, if there are 3 VPs, then each one gets 1/3 of a vote.

If an office is unable to make a decision (dissenting members), then the job will be taken over by those currently in the turnchat, or by the President if it's not a turnchat. Needless to say, if the 'office' is unable to come to a decision, it is to be taken over by others. Candidates should be aware of that before they choose any 'running mates'. It would be the candidates' fault, not the Constitution's.

[mtgillespie]

I voted no in it's current form. This "joint ministers" idea will just become a rod for our own backs, and makes things far too complicated. Aggie is right on this issue. If the workload becomes too great, ministers can appoint their own deputies/clerks/assistants or whatever else they want to call them, without an election. However, they should not have power in a turnchat, even if the minister is absent, nor should the deputy take over if the minister leaves early.

In the case of the historian(s), this should not be a ministerial post, as it holds no power. It's already an administrative role, and should be considered as such. if that needs a seperate ammendment, that's fine.

I also agree with Aggie on the ministers deciding in the case of a tie. this all needs to be clearer.

[punkbass2000]

I agree with Aggie's complaints and accordingly must vote 'no'.

[Jon Shafer]

Why do people complain about these things after I've already put it up for a vote...

Sheesh. There was a reason I bumped the discussion thread one last time, and only 1 person responded...

[LordImpact]

[SIZE=1]
In the case of the historian(s), this should not be a ministerial post, as it holds no power. It's already an administrative role, and should be considered as such. if that needs a seperate ammendment, that's fine.

I don't think Historian should be a ministerial position either. The position is in fact listed under "Other" on the government thread isnt it? We don't call the historian(s) Minister(s) of History do we? They don't make an decisions when it comes to playing the game.

As for having two ministers for one position, I don't agree with it. it seems like a waste of manpower and time, and it would only cause problems down the road. If someone needs help they can employ an assistant.

--Impact

[Jon Shafer]

From what I know, Historian was a ministerial position long before I joined the game, so don't look at me.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by Aggie
1) The following paragraph was too vague;
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 candidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

Did you mean a plurality, so if we had three people running and the results are
a-5
b-7
c-6
Does b win or do we have a runoff between b and c.

Under what circumstances do the ministers vote on a winner?

Unless I'm missing something here, I see no problem with the amendment. Simple majority wins, therefore, in your case, Candidate b wins outright. If b and c both had 7 votes, that is where the Ministers' votes are taken also.

And as for Constitutional rulings, this brings up a point that I consider simple common sense, but may well be contested by the sticklers for legality here (tho' God knows why). IMO, in the case of confusion within the Constitution (where the rules aren't quite as specifically worded as to cover every eventuality), should the Judges rule based on what they believe is intended by the Amendment? Of course, the Judges could not rule something that is specifically forbidden in the Constitution (unless the people grant them that power), but if it is not clarified perfectly, should they have a little leeway here?

Example:

Let us assume for a moment that Foreign Ministers can appoint Ambassadors to do some of their job. It is they who have the sole right to appoint these people, as worded in the Constitution.

If an Ambassador resigned and appointed a replacement, that was subsequently accepted by the Foreign Minister, this is un-Constitutional by the above, as it was not the Minister who named the person. Thus someone could legitimately bring this before the Judiciary. Although strictly illegal, the Foreign Minister accepted the appointment, so there should be no conflict but for this loophole. Instead of excessively rewording amendments ad infinitum, should the Judiciary have the power to rule on what was intended with the rule - ie that the Ambassador is appointed either directly by the Foreign Minister, or by someone else, and they become official only with the Foreign Minister's approval?

It is IMO that this should be so, as we seem to be getting to the level of detail that such an issue (though it looks ridiculous now) may well come up, and must be accounted for.

And why not consider Historian to be part of all of this? It is an elected post like all the others, and thus ideally goes to (in the view of the people) an able candidate, who should be equally able to cast a deciding vote like the rest of the Cabinet.

I vote YES in its current form.

[Jon Shafer]

Thank you for that, Mwia.

Is it really necassary to word every last minute detail of the Constitution so that any possible case is covered? Isn't that why we're creating a Court? Come on people, whatever happened to the idea of "a limited Constitution"... the option for "we should have a strict set of rules" was right on my poll, but people voted for a limited set of rules instead... We could make amendments covering anything and everything that could possible come up. That's not what I want, and I'm sure that's not what most other people want either...

[Will 5001]

I am going to vote "no" since the team idea for election will result in chaos, there are loads of ministers as it is, this way there would be more ministers than citizens (well not quite )!!!