Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Election Reform, Ammendment drafting thread

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Election Reform, Ammendment drafting thread

    Yes, I know Trip had proposed an ammendment III to deal with this, and here is the wording from his last post on it, but given what we've just been through we have more things to consider that aren't covered by this:

    Each election takes place from the 12th of the month until the 16th. A Pre-Election thread must be created by the current President or Vice-President at least a week before the elections are set to take place. All elections must last 5 days, until the 16th. All candidates must announce their candidacy before the elections begin in that thread, or else he will be excluded from the ballot. Once the 5 days has passed, then the new or reelected officials 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 officials to conduct the elections.

    The winner of the election is determined by the number of votes they recieve: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie in an election with more than two candidates, there will be an additional vote on the two tied candidates. In a two man election, if there is a tie between the two candidates, then a vote will be conducted amongst the newly elected officials to decide who will recieve the office.

    A person may run for only one office per election. Candidates may not be a judge in the court, nor may they be in the process of pursuing a position in the court while a candidate for another office. One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. Candidates for an official office may not run in teams. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other.

    The position of 'Historian' is hereby made an unofficial office. The only official rule it must abide by is a fair and legal election, in accordance to all rules in place for this process.
    While I agree with everything in that it needs to address the following in addition:

    1) Who can vote?
    Just registered members, I would assume. How is that going to be enforced. Possibility of some form of election commission.

    2) If only registered members whats the latest they can sign up as a member and still vote?
    I'd say right up until the start of the electionl, but some might want to allow signing up as a member and voting during the election, or to require being a member a day or even a week before the election starts.

    3) Can a canidate concede defeat if he wins and make his leading opponent the victor?
    I vote no, if the victor concedes it invalidates the election and results in new nominations and votes.

    Anything else Im leaving out that needs to be addressed?


    Btw if this is redundant with another ammendment thread, Im sorry. The only ones I could find already trying to form the language for an election ammendment were trip's two on ammendment III which I quoted above.

  • #2
    Re: Election Reform, Ammendment drafting thread

    Originally posted by wervdon

    1) Who can vote?
    Just registered members, I would assume. How is that going to be enforced. Possibility of some form of election commission.
    I like the election comission idea. Maybe we could make it so that only two people can see the votes. MarkG could give them the list and they can go through it and get rid of any non-citizen voters. Or it would it be possible to have the administrators only allow people on the citizen list to vote?
    For your photo needs:
    http://www.canstockphoto.com?r=146

    Sell your photos

    Comment


    • #3
      I suggest we take this very slowly. Mark has stated he is looking at the possibility of linking the citizen list to the ability to vote in this (the Civ3 Demo) forum.

      If he can do that, then most of the gordian knot is broken. If he cannot do that, then we face a major task in replacing the current polling method.
      (\__/)
      (='.'=)
      (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

      Comment


      • #4
        2) If only registered members whats the latest they can sign up as a member and still vote?
        I say they should only be able to vote if they registered at any time before the start of the election

        3) Can a canidate concede defeat if he wins and make his leading opponent the victor?
        I say yes. If the leader of the vote suddenly finds out he cant play out his term in office, it would be much too complicated to have a second election process. Instead, allowing the runner up to take the office seems much more convenient. And, because he already volounteered to run, and was 1: either the only one to volounteer other than the conceeder or 2: beat out other candidates enough

        the only circumstance i would put on that though is if the election had more than 2 candidates, and no one had a 50%+1 majority. Then i would revote, like a consolidation vote.
        Resident Filipina Lady Boy Expert.

        Comment


        • #5
          I think Markos is working out something for us (I think? Can anyone confirm this for me?) regarding unfair voting.

          I would also agree that you would have to be a member for at least one week before you can vote, to avoid "recruiting" voters. Maybe Markos can do something about this as well.

          As far as dropping out of a race, I feel that if elected, that candidate could simply resign as soon as he got into office if he was elected anyways. And had he not run, then whoever was in second place would become President in the end anyways.

          Comment


          • #6
            Maybe only allow a person to win by the opponent conceding if he had 30% of the vote or more. I just dont want to see a situation where someone ends up elected with almost no support because of a mis-leading election.

            Comment


            • #7
              Oh and yeah I agree we should wait and see what Markos can do for us before we debate the 1st point too much, this was more to get ideas on the table and in one spot than to make any decision now.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by wervdon
                Maybe only allow a person to win by the opponent conceding if he had 30% of the vote or more. I just dont want to see a situation where someone ends up elected with almost no support because of a mis-leading election.
                That's a good point. What would we do if Sir Ralph (to pick an example of a land slide in a 3 person race) announced he must not serve before the poll closes?
                (\__/)
                (='.'=)
                (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                Comment


                • #9
                  It could cause problems since the voters would have voted differently if Person A wasn't in the race since they could not have voted for Person A. It skews the results of the votes.

                  Also, if someone does drop out of a race, then what happens next time they want to run for office? I realize sometimes unexpected things occur: death in the family, etc.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Perhaps give the courts the authority to declare an election invalid at their discretion if a candidate drops out rather than just taking the runner up automatically. In some cases it would obviously make sense to just take the runner up (like in a 2 person race where both got a fairly decent # of votes), but in others it just doesnt.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Hmmm. Would be better to have a rule to guide them with.
                      (\__/)
                      (='.'=)
                      (")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Either way, the purpose of this thread is to put ideas on the table and debate. Id rather just have a rule too, but its not going to keep me from pointing out alternatives for debate

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          According to the Constitution, the Vice President would take over in the event of the President being "unable to play his turn". As it is written in the Constitution, this may mean a temporary assumption of office - but in one instance in the Civ2 game the VP was required to take over for nearly a full term.

                          If our provision IS for a temporary term, then the judiciary (when enacted) must clarify this, and we must make a longer-term provision. If we have the runner-up in the Prez election take over - how good is that? Assuming we have a clear-cut runner-up (if we have a runner-up at ALL), we could have someone run just to provide competition, and they would hardly be likely to end up a suitable President.

                          My thoughts at the moment are that the VP should take over for the whole term, and not to give the Presidency to the loser of the election (if one); either way we must clarify this before we run into further problems.
                          Consul.

                          Back to the ROOTS of addiction. My first missed poll!

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
                            My thoughts at the moment are that the VP should take over for the whole term, and not to give the Presidency to the loser of the election (if one); either way we must clarify this before we run into further problems.
                            That works if it was the presidential winner who conceded, but what if its another of our officials? We don't have a vice-foreign minister for example


                            But your idea is probally how it would happen in the US if that occurred. For example if on November 12th, 1996 Bill Clinton had said "You know what I dont want to be president again after all." I dont think we'd of sworn in Bob Dole, it'd of probally of been Al Gore

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              We can hope that officials disappearing is a rare occurrence, and we must consider the likelihood of this when choosing who to give our votes to in all positions very carefully.

                              In the Civ2 game the VP is a backup for ANYone who goes away, and we only had to deal with the Prez going once. We could give the VP the job that is vacated, and if anyone else disappears as well in the same term (exceptionally rare occurrence), then we may need to think of an alternative.

                              But then again, how much of this is necessary? Shall we plan for the so-improabable-that-it-wil-be-nigh-on-unheard-of? The judiciary is needed for such emergencies, and NOT incredibly detailed, weighty legislation.
                              Consul.

                              Back to the ROOTS of addiction. My first missed poll!

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X