How to do elections: Discussion here - Page 2

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 03:11

Quote:

Originally posted by POTUS
Well, it isn't so hard is it? And, we are looking for a way where non-citizens, i.e. lurkers and others who just happen upon this can't vote and mess us up.

That why I say vote in a thread.

Match up the post vs citizenship, then count the vote.

It takes me 5 seconds to vote.

Sample post:

"I vote for Harmony Party"

You are done.

As opposed to I have to send a PM to three or four people.

Lets say I spell one login name wrong, what happens then when only two of three judges get my vote? What if only one of three get my vote?

Like I said if you guys want some convoluted PM system to vote then I wont be the election judge (even though the president should), simple as that. Its gonna take way to much time and aggravation for me and I have already expended my quota of aggravation in this PBEM.

And quite frankly we are doing this because of a cheater, and I dont waste my time on cheaters, because they aint worth it. Thats my opinion and I aint changing it. And I aint discussing this topic any further either. (Cheating that is)

Enough said, I told you guys what I want to do, its simple easy and to the point.

If the group wants to do something else fine, Im just NOT going to be one of the election judges then, simple as that.

POTUS · January 10, 2004, 03:23

I don't think you would be, anyway.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 03:39

Quote:

Originally posted by POTUS
I don't think you would be, anyway.

There was some discussion that my position should be in charge of the election earllier.

So I just wanted to make my position clear on this issue.

In either case since convoluted and cumbersome seems to be what people want I suggest you all reach a conclusion on HOW exactly the election shall be done and WHO (plural) is going to administer it.

The April turn is starting shortly and not only do we have to do elections but we then have to form a coalition governement, and you all know how long that took last time.

yaroslav · January 10, 2004, 06:38

First of all, I clearly prefer emails over PM, because an email is easier to send to four people than PM (you need to send 4 PMs). Second, the system IMHO should be agreed by Emugod, Ben Kenobi and PinkyGen. I've no problem with posting in a thread (in fact, it's easier) but some people could complain about privacy.

I don't know what is the best solution... I'd like to see a deal between the three parties, because it's a MAJOR issue.

Dr. Nick · January 10, 2004, 10:20

I say I lead a coup de etat with the army, and seize absolute power, then I ship you all to the front to face arab bullets.

Er, wasn't meant to say that aloud.

yaroslav · January 10, 2004, 10:30

Then It will be not a demogame, Menem-lover

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 11:03

OK lets try this:

We have an election thread that you can vote in. Its simple you just post in that thread which party you vote for.

If an individual is concerned about privacy they send an email to the three or four "election judges" you have to have at least one judge from each party. You post in the thread that you have emailed your vote.

The only people that are eligable to vote are persons that are on the official party list of the three parties.

At the close of the election the "head Judge" tabulates the posted and the emailed votes and then posts them in the election thread.

The other judges then post either concurrance or non concurrance with the results in the election thread.

The Election thread is ONLY for:

1. Announcing the election with a brief description of how it works.
2. Posting your vote.
3. Posting that you emailed your vote.
4. The Head Judges results
5. Concurrance or non concurrance from the other judges.
6. If non concurrance repeat steps 4 and 5 until concurrance (unanimous) or the election results are declared invalid.
7. Any posts not filling one of these requirements is deleated by one of the mini mods.

I am calling for a KNESSET vote on this topic!

Knesset members vote here whether you approve of or disapprove my proposal.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 11:09

For the first six months in game time, here is the Knesset based on the memberlists in the Party Threads of our three parties:

PinkyGen
conmcb25
EmuGod
Stalin II
Ben Kenobi

Lets hope we can get all the Knesset members to vote this time.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 11:10

I vote to approve conmcb25's election proposal.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 11:16

PM;s sent to all my fellow Knesset members asking them to vote.

PM did not go thru to Ben Kenobi, his mail box was full and he was notified via email that it was full.

Ill try and send him an email.

Edit: email sent to BK.

yaroslav · January 10, 2004, 11:29

I like your idea, Steve

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 11:43

Quote:

Originally posted by yaroslav
I like your idea, Steve

Thanks Yaro, if you are on instant messanger today please keep an eye open for Emu to log on and let him know we are voting on this.

Im at work and can only get on AIM occassionally, I think EMU uses MSN.

yaroslav · January 10, 2004, 11:50

Not sure if I'll be online much more time today... But if I do, I'll keep an eye on MSN

PinkyGen · January 10, 2004, 16:53

I like the mixing of the two system's. I vote yes.

I assume judges are appointed by the parties. If we adopt this system, I'll be the judge for One Israel. Centre and Harmony should select their judges, but please be quick.

And make sure your e-mail is posted!!!

Con pointed out to me over AIM that since he is President, he should probably be the 4th "Head Judge."

POTUS · January 10, 2004, 17:22

I think it is good.

conmcb25 · January 10, 2004, 17:27

Quote:

Originally posted by PinkyGen
Con pointed out to me over AIM that since he is President, he should probably be the 4th "Head Judge."

Correct but it is a Presidential responsibility, not a conmcb25 responsibility.

So whomever is Pres next would also do that.

But thats the next step. Lets get the resolution passed and if someone else has an idea we can talk about it then.

But with reps from all parties it makes it kind of hard to do "Chicago Style" politics.

Ben Kenobi · January 11, 2004, 21:33

Sorry for the delay.

I don't want the job. I understand the desire to count votes, to make sure that no one votes twice, but I don't like the implication of guilt. We should trust the people who vote on our polls, otherwise I see little reason to have polls.

Position of leader of the Harmony party will also be up for anyone interested, because of personal problems that I am sorting through make me a poor candidate for the job at this point in time.

So please anyone interested should post in the party thread.

As for this vote, I vote nay. I thank you for the compliment in asking me to count the votes, but no thank you.

conmcb25 · January 11, 2004, 21:58

Ok two for and one against although Im not sure BK understood.

BK if you check back here you dont have to count votes, just someone in your party.

We are voting on whether this ia an OK propoasal or not.

Well if he cant check back then we have to count the vote as a nay.

I wonder where Center Party is.

*con looks around and doesn't seem to see anyone..........*

EmuGod · January 11, 2004, 22:28

I'm going to have to vote "no" unless the part about only people who are members of parties being eligible to vote is removed. We got two new members who never joined a party. Accoridng to this proposal they cannot vote which is unfair, as they specifically requested to join.

PinkyGen · January 11, 2004, 22:29

Quote:

Originally posted by conmcb25

The only people that are eligable to vote are persons that are on the official party list of the three parties.

Emu just pointed this out to me on AIM, I must have missed it the first time reading. I think this has to go, you need not be in a party to vote. In fact, it seems silly to hold elections if only party men can vote.

It should be you must be a member of the demo-group to vote.

Can we change it to that.

conmcb25 · January 12, 2004, 10:41

Good point.

But I assumed all the demo group members were in a party but that is probably a wrong assumption.

I say Emu votes no and the proposal is defeated.

Next up whoever wants to figure out how to hold elections.

Now if Emu would have voted yes as long as we agreed to change that one word to Demo Game CIVGROUP members then we would have had something to work with.

Wake me up if we ever have elections. I have already over-expended my allocation of energy and time to this election.

yaroslav · January 12, 2004, 10:50

Members of the civgroup is good enough, IMHO.

PinkyGen · January 12, 2004, 14:32

Emu voted no because of the requirement you needed to be a member of a party. Since you agreed to waive that requirement he may very now vote yes.

I hereby ask to Emugod to re-vote, now that Con and I have agreed that being in the demo-group suffices for eligibility in voting.

Also, Stalin II has yet to vote.

EmuGod · January 12, 2004, 18:57

Once the proposal is already in the voting stages, it is too late to change it. Also, I cannot change my vote unless the entire proposal is re-posted with the appropriate changes so that there is no confusion for anyone.

yaroslav · January 12, 2004, 19:15

Steve's proposal edited:

OK lets try this:

We have an election thread that you can vote in. Its simple you just post in that thread which party you vote for.

If an individual is concerned about privacy they send an email to the three or four "election judges" you have to have at least one judge from each party. You post in the thread that you have emailed your vote.

The only people that are eligable to vote ~~are persons that are on the official party list of the three parties.~~ are persons that are members of the civgroup

At the close of the election the "head Judge" tabulates the posted and the emailed votes and then posts them in the election thread.

The other judges then post either concurrance or non concurrance with the results in the election thread.

The Election thread is ONLY for:

1. Announcing the election with a brief description of how it works.
2. Posting your vote.
3. Posting that you emailed your vote.
4. The Head Judges results
5. Concurrance or non concurrance from the other judges.
6. If non concurrance repeat steps 4 and 5 until concurrance (unanimous) or the election results are declared invalid.
7. Any posts not filling one of these requirements is deleated by one of the mini mods.

I am calling for a KNESSET vote on this topic!

Knesset members vote here whether you approve of or disapprove my proposal.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Two notes:

1) Please Steve, post here if you agree with my little-edited version of your proposal.

2) I'll try to contact mikko tomorrow.

Good night to all you!

conmcb25 · January 12, 2004, 20:57

I already voted.

I approve.

You need three yes's and we can't count on BK, he has some personnal issues right now.

So two more need to vote yes.

PinkyGen · January 12, 2004, 23:13

I vote yes.

Need Stalin or Emu.

conmcb25 · January 12, 2004, 23:24

My searching is done.

Nilat · January 13, 2004, 14:04

I vote: Jawohl!

(yes)

conmcb25 · January 13, 2004, 14:20

It looks like two nos and three yes's so the proposal carries.

Thanks Stalin II!

I am going to give it a day or two before I get the election thread going. To give Harmony a chance to figure out who will lead them in BK's absence.

In the meantime if you want to get electioneering threads up to promote your party platforms go ahead.