Amendment III: Election Standards

[Aggie]

Trip and MWIA the problem with that paragraph wasn't just the vaguesness, It is the word majority. According to the pargraph
in the example
a-5
b-7
c-6
NONE of the candidates will win since b does not have a majority, b has a plurality, a majority means more than half the votes. This sounds awfully picky I know and I am sorry, but if this amendment is passed there is a good chance that many elections with three or more candidates will end up being decided by ministers and that is very undemocratic. The one word "majority" causes the problem. I am not oppossed to vagueness since that is why the US constitution has done so well. However vagueness + a word used mistakenly(and it is a very common error) = kaos.
Of course if this does pass we can quickly just pass an amendment to change the word majority to plurality and that would fix it all.
I must have missed the other discussion on joint candidates because this is the first I heard of it, If I has seen it earlier I would have complained then too.
Best Regards and Good Luck
Aggie

[MrWhereItsAt]

Aggie - I see the word "majority" as applied to an election in a Democratic game as NOT necessarily an "outright majority" (50%+), but as the most number of votes for one option. I don't think this has been disputed in either game since the concept's inception here about 6 months ago.

It is a valid point that perhaps some people may use this as an excuse to contest an election result, but I hope this is not so, as it is pretty clear what the amendment is trying to do and actually means. If we have such an occurrence, I expect the Judiciary would glare at the one who brought this before them and tell them off for wasting their time.

This is just further evidence for a level-headed Judiciary to decide on the seriousness (or silliness) of Constitutional issues.

[Robber Baron]

And by the way, we're creating a record here of our meaning (sort of like "legislative intent" in the U.S. system) to guide our court in the event of confusion down the road.

[Jon Shafer]

As Mwia said, it is the court's decision. The court will be the only one to decide whether a decision (or election/poll) is legal or not, not the nit pickers trying to shove what they want down the throats of the people (hopefully none of them will get appointed ).

[Aggie]

I'm not trying to be technical. I am just trying to head off trouble in the future, Right now we all agree where this great country is headed. However I can forsee a future where there are real idealogical issues and people will think that if they lose, the country will be gone by the next election. Now I doubt this will be the case, but by making it clear in the constitution now, we close a potential loophole that a loser with friends on the court could utilize to cause problems. I hope I haven't offended or irritated anybody by bringing up these points. Now we've all said our piece on that and its up to the people to decide if this and the issue on joint candidates(the big problem issue I think,but that had been discussed elsewhere) are enough to deny this amendment the 2/3 necessary votes. Of course even if it is defeated, an amendment w/o the problem areas could quickly be written up and approved(maybe even before the end of the elections).
Thank you for your time and responses
Aggie

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Aggie
I'm not trying to be technical. I am just trying to head off trouble in the future, Right now we all agree where this great country is headed. However I can forsee a future where there are real idealogical issues and people will think that if they lose, the country will be gone by the next election. Now I doubt this will be the case, but by making it clear in the constitution now, we close a potential loophole that a loser with friends on the court could utilize to cause problems. I hope I haven't offended or irritated anybody by bringing up these points. Now we've all said our piece on that and its up to the people to decide if this and the issue on joint candidates(the big problem issue I think,but that had been discussed elsewhere) are enough to deny this amendment the 2/3 necessary votes. Of course even if it is defeated, an amendment w/o the problem areas could quickly be written up and approved(maybe even before the end of the elections).
Thank you for your time and responses
Aggie

Except for a little something in the Constitution that says you can't post the same poll for another three weeks...

[Aggie]

Trip I stand corrected on my last sentence, I was hoping that since the wording would be different and it would not be the same amendment we could get it done, however since its general purpose would be the same we can't. Still we went throught the first elections ok, its still likely we could do these as well, and then reintroduce it later in three weeks.(Ofcourse it still might pass now, it seems to be very close) Hopefully we will have a judiciary in place to solve any problems.
Aggie

[notyoueither]

I don't think anything is so pressing Trip. Is it?

Consensus seems to be to allow the history guys to embark on their voyage together. It is not seen to be a critical issue (yet).

The ammendment would be just as easily resubmitted 3 weeks from now. The nation will not crumble.

Such is the danger of springing wording and concepts on the people without consensus about the issue before hand. At least, I don't recall any discussion of potentially having 3 VPs and 2 SMCs.

[Jon Shafer]

I just wanted to get it in before the next elections start, with good timing.

I suppose as long as we can create a court before too long, they'll be able to handle anything serious that arises.

*Submits that amendment so that it'll be done by the time the elections start* J/k.

[notyoueither]

I don't think anybody is going to challenge the history guys running together. If they do, they can post a poll for the people to decide. That's the beauty of consensus.

Those who disagree can make a formal application to the people. The people can judge. I think I know how the people would judge in that particular case.

Please don't rush the court ammendment. As it stands, we have a court. The will of the people through a properly constructed poll.

The court is a good idea, I fear though that we may be inventing knots for rope that does not yet exist, and we may not have considered the proper knot for some of the rope at hand.

[Jon Shafer]

Actually, we don't have a court yet. People have voted in an unofficial poll to have a court added through an amendment... but that doesn't mean we have one yet, or that we will have one at all.

I have to say in regards to concerns that people are brining up in this thread that I don't disagree with what's being proposed. Yes, it's good to be clear and definitive. Sometimes it can be a bit much though... My concern is that I bumped the thread one last time, got 1 problem, modified it, waited another day... nothing, so posted it. And now suddenly, there's a whirlwind of support against (even if people are vastly in the majority, that doesn't get amendments passed unless it's 2/3). I just hope people take a look at the discussion threads first and read the exact wording that the amendment will consist of first, before I try and post it. Those are the kinds of things that are to be weeded out in the discussion threads, and not the polls.

NYE, J/k means just kidding you know. I don't plan on submitting the court amendment for another week at least. We're carving out the main outline of what it will look like, but there are still many things to be added and refined. I expected it to be the most well thought out and important, if not the longest amendment yet (so what if there's only a couple, I think it'll be the most important for quite a while ). So don't get yourself excited, I won't be rushing things.

[notyoueither]

I read your j/k. Hense I'm being nice.

But really Trip. The only problem your ammendment is running into is due to a too hasty addition of an idea that anyone who considers the implications must reject. That and the unfortunate use of the word 'majority'.

Having 2 SMCs would be absurd. This was not discussed anywhere except in relation to the history guys. Forgive me, but most people regard the history guys as very unthreatening.

However, the possibility of having dueling 'official' polls about the conduct of a war because Uber can not agree with Uber2 about troop movements in a campaign would be nothing, if not chaotic. In fact, it would bring the game to a stand still for 4 or more days.

The moral is not to rush these things.

[Nubclear]

Re: Amendment III: Election Standards

And while Tassadar was reading through the forums, he was forced to squint his eyes as the first rays of the sun hit his eyes. This was not only an indiciation to him, but an indication to the people that this is the final dawn that this poll will survive. In a few hours, the poll shall be put to rest and its results cast in stone for all eternity....

And so far, it doesn't look like it's going to pass.

[Spiffor]

Although I'm ticked with the "ministers decide who wins" thing, I voted YES, and I strongly urge to vote yes.
This amendment is well written, adresses in a clear way some issues (such as the confusing "terms in a row" issue).
While this amendment will have minimal political impact, it will have a great impact in organization, and it will let us be more organized when elections come.

Good work Trip

[Togas]

Re: Amendment III: Election Standards

Originally posted by Trip
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.

I voted no because I am not in favor of this part.

We do not need to impose term limits at this point in the game. No one player has yet to become a "career politician" and we may discover that we want to keep a particular minister beyond the 2 term limit due to his or her great talents and contributions to the Democracy.

--Togas