Official: Formation of an Emergency Court to resolve our current situation

[Kramerman]

AHHHHHHHHHH! THIS IS SO FRUSTRATING!

I've heard many good ideas and many poor ones all over the Democracy Game forum, but there is no concensus on what to do. The indecisiveness and seeming confusion of all this madness brings a picture to mind of a turtle on its back .

The supreme court fix seems to be generally accepted, but it will be some time before its up and running. To me a temporary court is an excellent idea, though its powers and such should be debated, and as it is I think it would just take too long - almost as long a the real court to be set up.

Trip is still the President until the end of the poll, is he not? I have been disapointed at his leadership in this time of crises.

The all around best solution to the problem is that the loser of the Presidential election, when the poll closes, step down and allow the winner to assume full and undisputed power.

Kman

EDIT: Gotta love Uber's avatar! My face lights up evertime i see it.

[Edrix]

Trip already said he would do that graciously, if it went that far. Problem solved.

[Aggie]

I'm sorry timeline but the only logical solution(if you don't like the copresidency) is a count based only on citizen votes and then you will have a winner without dispute.
Aggie

[Kramerman]

In regards to the issue of non-citizens voting, that is something the court could (should?) look at for future elections. In this one I feel it is irrelevant at this time.

AGREED!!!!!

Everybody just agree to this and we're set. We'll make sure that in the future this will never happen again.

EDIT:

Trip already said he would do that graciously, if it went that far. Problem solved.

Excellent!

[Captain]

Despite being named as part of an emergency court, I must disagree with the concept. But thank you for your consideration Timeline.

All else aside, the overriding factor is that I think that creating a temporary court, and agreeing on which 3 members will be judges, and getting those 3 to agree, and then implementing their solution, which may be contested by many others,.... will be far more complex than simply repolling if it comes to that.

Considering the majority of the populace, at this time, is against the idea of 2 presidents, only one should be permitted (even though I think a Ninot-Trip team would be fine). The poll shows that most people do not want Trip and Ninot to share power and that should be respected. Further, while not expressedly forbidden, sharing a co-Pres may infringe on the office of the VP and therefore substantiate a charge against such sharing. (However, we do not yet have a Court so there is no present method of resolving such charges, or any contested issues at all. The only process we have so far is the use of polls, which may themselves be contested leading to validity polls about validity polls of validity polls of validity polls about the original poll... et cetera ad nauseum)

The Constitution does not say anything specific regarding what is required for victory in Elections, the closest thing we have in the Code of Laws is in the Poll Format section which says:

Each official poll MUST include either a ‘yes/no’ format, or a ‘group’ format, where similar options are grouped together, where the winning option within the group with the most votes is the official winner. The only time these formats do not have to be followed is in true multiple-choice polls, i.e. ‘Which Civilization should we be: Egyptians, Persians. Etc.’ In these cases, a simple ‘yes/no’ or ‘grouping’ poll does not suffice.

Bold italics mine.

The bold section is the only place I found which refers to requirements for poll results - indicating most votes wins. The italic section is rather vague and I am not quite sure what it means. It could be taken to invalidate the bold section since an election poll is more similar to the polls described in italics, than a simple yes/no or grouping poll. But it is ambiguous.

Therefore, the Code of Laws is at best vague on the subject and at worst silent.


In order of personal preference, I suggest:

1) MarkG checks and we discount non-citizen votes. Determine who is the winner. (I am not sure of public support for the idea of discounting non-citizen votes, but I support it)

or

2) One of the two candidates concedes. The other becomes President.

or

3) Quick repoll. Elected VP takes Presidential role until a new President is determined.



In each of the above cases, the winner can appoint the loser to some special position if so desired as long as such a position does not infringe on the jurisdiction of existing offices. The Code of Laws is silent on this at present. New legislation/amendments could (and should IMHO) be passed in the future to regulate this.

[Timeline]

These ideas sound excellent to me, and I think the first two out of the three are the most popular atm.

As a third option we can leave the poll alone from tampering, and accept the results.

Alot is being done by NYE also to uncover the people's will, so I will be watching to see what the general consences seems to be.

[Kramerman]

1) Maybe if 2) doesn't happen.

2) Hopefully, this is the fastest, quickest, and easiest solution.

3) I hope not. This will take time and people may change their votes for various reasons from the first poll. I don't like this one and hope the other two happen.

Good analysis, Captain, Im sure this is how its gonna be

Kman

[civman2000]

No. AS i've said before, I actually dont think it'll be tied when it ends, and ninot now has a 4-vote lead. If it is tied, the people should vote on these things not special judges anyways

[civman2000]

My order is:
1. someone wins when it closes, they win.
2. remove non-citizens
3. concede

I think captains #3 is as undemocratic as it gets. Essentially, we check to see whether more ninot supporters or trip supporters are online and active within a short period of time not hw many there actually are

[Kuciwalker]

We need to discount non-citizen votes. The 4-vote lead probably has nothing to do with any citizen's votes, but rather the random voting of non-citizens.

[wervdon]

Im abstaining on this until I see the vote results minus the non-signups that MarkG promised in the election thread. If the results of this election are shown not to be affected by unregistered voters then there is no need for this.

If on the other hand it is shown that they changed the outcome....we could consider this, but I think id lean against it. It seems like it'd be easier and just as constitutional to make a poll on wether votes from un-registered citizens should count or not.

[Kuciwalker]

No poll. It's implied in the Constitution, and in fact by the very existence of the sign-up thread, that you need to sign up to vote.

[wervdon]

After re-reading the constitution I dont think its implied or otherwise that voters have to have signed up. In fact its totally silent on who can vote for what.

The existance of the signup thread though does sort of imply that you should sign up to vote. In any case, I dont think a poll to clarify the issue would hurt, but I strongly suspect it'd be something like 75% of people voting would vote for only "signed up citizens" can vote, so it maybe semi-pointless. I just would just hate to assume that and be wrong. I do know that I would vote to restrict voting rights to members though, even if it would reverse the election against who I originally voted for

If we don't poll this time, then it should at least be expressely stated in our election reform ammendment who can and can't vote so that the people eventually get a say on the issue.

Im personally hoping that the poll I suggested is made unnessary because it didnt change the outcome of this election anyways though, and we can just deal with the whole deal through an ammendment during this term.

[Kuciwalker]

Well, maybe not in the Constitution, but why do we have a sign-up thread if we don't need them to sign up?

[wervdon]

Heh, I agree that it is almost implied that people have to sign up to vote, but to me (being a strict constitutionalist) implied isn't enough to make it law Thats just me though. In any case as Trip conceded, and there's nothing currently in the laws to say he can't concede, that means the immediate situation is resolved. We just need to make it a priority to get an election ammendment writing this stuff out ratified.