Do You Approve of the "Two President" Decision?

[civman2000]

Timelines is better than simultaneous presidency, but following the poll is even better. Unless it closes tied, which i actually doubt will happen, there is no problem. If it does then we should poll the other advisors ir do something like that but not have 2 presidents

[Papa Chubby]

Mark has just said that there is not any overt sign of any cheatig. He has stated though that the fact that only about 95 (approximation) of the 120 (approximation) who voted have submitted a post in the join thread, not the best of things. Besides this could all blow over as Ninot is over by three votes right now.

[jdjdjd]

Splitting the month is a good solution. And you could add to it this

Ninot is Trip's aid while Trip acts as president, though he can only do duties not reserved for the President or VP in the Const. And then they switch roles.

[Timeline]

LOL @ jdjdjd

Edit: Darnit man, you edited your post

[Proserpine]

Sounds like we have our very own "pregnant chad" situation.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to split the presidency, that is just as much a "stitch up" as the 2 pres. proposal.

Trip, while I appreciate that the Presidency is doubtless much work, that is partly why we have a VP, IMO. We don't need another Pres.

If the poll is completely tied, then there should be a repoll, no question.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Timeline


LOL @ jdjdjd

Edit: Darnit man, you edited your post

yes, I thought I read all the posts and then saw all this other stuff...and then I was like, you knw, oh my god, and then I said well, I'm changing it because it doesn't make sense, and you know, so I did it, and then oh my god, did you like the original best, well, you know, anyway...

I thought your compromise idea is a way out of the woods.

[Aggie]

This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?

Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie

[Kuciwalker]

I like Timeline's proposal, but if we can count citizen's votes only, we should do that.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Aggie
This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?

Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie

If the legal votes are sorted out from the illegal ones, then the winner of the Presidential elction, by plurality vote as stated in the Constitution, must honor that election poll and become the single President of Apolytonia.

If the "legalized" poll shows a single winner, then he must follow that. If he didn't, then that would defeat the purpose of our Constitution and our Democracy. I say this is the most legal solution. Since we don't yet have a supreme court, then the newly elected ministers and VP can sort out the votes with MarkG help and the true winner be identified. If it turns out to be a real tie, then the Pres should be chosen however the Constitution says it should be done. And remember (I believe but am not sure, but it is only logical), Trip is still the President until the new one takes office so legislation can still be passed. I mean just because we are in the voting process doesn't mean we don't have a leader.

Also, many good solutions have been proposed, such as by Timeline, but the "citizenry" cannot arbitrarily chose the solution to this problem on this thread. The solution should be voted on like normal legislation by the governing body (I dunno if that includes the citizenry, I haven't been active in the game until just a few days ago)

Kman

[Schee]

We must have a single president

Having 2 presidents couldnt be efficient. (After French Révolution, there was a government called Directoire, France was governed by 5 guys and this period was even worse than before the Révolution because they were never in agreement and there was much corruption.)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Schee
We must have a single president

Having 2 presidents couldnt be efficient. (After French Révolution, there was a government called Directoire, France was governed by 5 guys and this period was even worse than before the Révolution because they were never in agreement and there was much corruption.)

The reason it didn't work was because all of the people in charge were fanatics. They couldn't have gotten into power at that time without promising the deaths of thousands. Robespierre proves that, and I don't see him in either me or Ninney.

[Schee]

Hmm... If my memory is good, they were choosen because people thought they were moderated... and it's right that Robespierre killed many people too before his head was cut.

But I don't think you're as bad as them

[Spiffor]

Trip :
Actually, Robespierre was dead already when the Directoire took over. They weren't fanatics but were cynical powerhungry people. However, things were blocked as soon as people disagreed (which can happen to the most moderate people).

[The_Hawk]

The one thing i've found in my experience with Civ, especially Civ3, is that it so mirrors life. It is almost a virtual training ground for things that we see in life. In nature, in the real world, you NEVER see 2 presidents. That has never been a good model of order, government and leadership. Therefore, i've voted for one president.

The problem here is abuse of power. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, just speaking in general. ANYONE that is voted into office—here at Apolytonia or elsewhere—must seriously be cognizant of their responsibility and duty to the people and to their position. The quest for 2 presidents sounds too much like a bad solution to someone's power struggle (don't know who's). If anything, the fact that the question was even raised might suggest that the distribution and balance of power might need to be reassessed. Just a thought...

[Sirotnikov]

By doing this, they are effectivly Electing Themselves President. They are totally ignoring an official poll, and the people's votes.

Ding!

Correct.

They are effectively making themselves despots and risk the democracy by creating the opportunity to do this again.