Discussion on more amendments

[Gilgamensch]

Nomination:

Another suggestion:

Anyone can nominate himself at any time, but from 7 days before till 1 day before the voting, he has to hold a speech, otherwise he won't be allowed in the poll (in other words, not a choice in the poll).

Or let me rephrase:

from day vote-7 till vote-1 speech time, and during election time arguements between the canidates.

Nomination at any time till 1 day before voting.

Reducing the court: Don't think we should do it. We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks.

Also: What do you want to do, if the last judge isn't there? It already happened and delayed the game quite a bit (no insult/whatever meant). With three judges, we have backup-possibilty/redundancy.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

thats no good, how do you define what a speech is?
"hi, vote me!" for example?
do we want legal disputes decided by the court whether "vote me, because i'm the right man" is a speech?
as the candidates normally are rather engaged posters here anywhere, i don't think we have to make any rules on that question.

about the judges: 3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered.

[Gilgamensch]

It was mainly an idea:

And for the speech:

I mean, it is up to the voters afterwards to see, if they accepted his speech.............

But how you like the idea in general?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

if its up to the voters how they liked the speech, than its up to the voters as well how they liked the non speech, or rather what the candidate in question writes elsewhere

[Gilgamensch]

The reason why I suggested a speech before, is as a last conformation that he will run for this office, instead of having the nomination thread.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

brings back problems, when that speech period is during that week, the candidate is in last holidays before becoming president, is the press-bureau of his party allowed to post his speech for him in that case?

[Gilgamensch]

In this case, I would even say, that parties might be recognised (don't forget that I am not really pro-parties ). The only thing which we then might have to sharpen is the impeachment.

He would need to be there after (s)he is elected, if not, an automated impeachement (what I wouldn't expect really), like within 24/48 hours, unless he personally would have assigned a delegate prior to the election.

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by Gilgamensch
... unless he personally would have assigned a delegate prior to the election.

we could also incorporate the us system of "running mates"

[Gilgamensch]

runnning mates? What is this?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

well afaik, a candidate for presidency chooses his to be vice president during their strange innerparty nomination process (aka pre-elections) and then actually candidate as team. we could use a similar system (not the preelections of course, that can be done by the partys themselves if they really want it ) for all ministers and the pres. given the small amount of people nominating themselves it would be wise of course to allow you to run as first candidate for one office and as vice (which would actually be the first one on the delegates list) for at least one other.

EDIT: actually if i see that right, thats pretty much what you proposed already above

[Gilgamensch]

Yep, looks like we were talking about the same thing, just different names in mind

[mapfi]

I don't think that's something that would work - we already have problems getting ministers, so vice is just another spot that won't get filled.
Nor do I like Gilg's idea of nomination.
He's right though in saying only one judge would be problematic because he could disappear but then the same thing is true when the President is missing. And the judge would only be elected for one month as well, just that the election shouldn't be held at the same time as the others.

We have choosen 3 judges to avoid deadlocks.

How's there going to be a deadlock with only one?

3 is a minimum that shouldn't be lowered.

Why do we need 3 judges? In the public hearing everyone can voice their opinion and then we just need someone to look through the whole con and write up a ruling. One is enough for that. A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.

No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST?

[Zaphod Beeblebrox]

Originally posted by mapfi
vice is just another spot that won't get filled.

a vice might be filled easier, less work to do, and of course, most people who would run for an office could be vice to another, the same as most people are delegates to some office.

Originally posted by mapfi
A lot of RL courts only hold one judge as well.

yep, those courts dealing with small shoplifters. supreme courts normally have 5 or 7 judges.

Originally posted by mapfi
No thoughts on giving the MoI's powers to Pres or MoDST?

IF! we are goint to reduce the number of ministers, we should first decide in which way we want the different deptments to be distributed among the ministries:
a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure

[child of Thor]

I like the idea in theory of the Pres playing turns every other day - regardless of which polls do or don't get finished etc.
It would speed the game up.....may even kinda force people to take part, if the game goes on without them - but not to their exact liking?
Or maybe it would do the exact opposite? Not sure....i think for myself i would want to get my votes cast so i would check often(although RL has a big say in this).
The main problem would be the work load for all the ministers - they would have a much shorter window in which to do all their polls/tasks, and report back to the president.
Still the idea is a nice one - much more like RL, life goes on even without your input. The Pres would have alot of power, and responsibility. What would happen if he played ahead and lost half the nation's cities? Or am i taking this point out of it's origonal context?

[mapfi]

a) to distribute work fairly
or b) to put in one office what is closely related (for instance domestic affairs and infrastructure

My proposal was going for a) because b) would mean a hell of a job for MoDA. And I do think it would be wise to cut one position - people have said so before and the current election shows it's clearly necessary.