Amendment III: Election Standards

Jon Shafer · July 8, 2002, 23:56

Without further complaints, I put this amendment up for a vote. 2/3 to pass:

This amendment is an attempt to rectify the potential loopholes of governmental elections, and to lay out basic rules.

Each election takes place exactly one month after the previous election. A Pre-Election thread must be created at least a week before the elections are set to take place. All elections must last 5 days. All candidates must announce their candidacy before the elections begin, or else he will be excluded from the ballot. Once the 5 days has passed, then the new or reelected ministers 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 Ministers to conduct the elections.

The winner of the election is determined by a simple majority vote: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a run-off between the tied candidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

A person may run for only one office per election. One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other.

'Joint candidates' of more than 1 person are allowed, but there may only be 2 people maximum running as a team. The limit for teammates for Vice-President is 3, while the office of President does not allow any form of team to run.

Question:
Is this amendment fit for acceptance?

Options:
Yes, No

Expiration:
4 Days, July 11th 2002

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 00:03

Looks alright to these eyes

dont trust that... I have 20/47 vision

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
'Joint candidates' of more than 1 person are allowed, but there may only be 2 people maximum running as a team. The limit for teammates for Vice-President is 3, while the office of President does not allow any form of team to run.

OK, OK, OK... wait on this one.

As far a ministerial votes are concerned... I vote yes provided that shared posts have 1 indivisable vote.

If they are an even number and they split evenly, no vote. If they are an odd number, the majority of their votes count as 1 vote.

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 00:59

I'll second that

Aggie · July 9, 2002, 01:23

Unfortunately though I like most of the amendment, I had to vote no and here is why
1) The following paragraph was too vague;
The winner of the election is determined by a simple majority vote: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a run-off between the tied candidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

Did you mean a plurality, so if we had three people running and the results are
a-5
b-7
c-6
Does b win or do we have a runoff between b and c.

Under what circumstances do the ministers vote on a winner?
These are too vague for an amendment to the constitution and could cause large headaches further down the road. Under these rules(due to the term majority) a loser could contest an election and a court would have no choice but to support him, unfortunately no further procedure is spelled out and our country could be in deep uncertainty. We all know we DON'T want a contested election.

2) I don't like the idea of joint candidates. If ministers need help then they can appoint deputies, but one person must be in charge or chaos can be created. Also we need one person to blame or credit.(This is largely for elections)

If these things are changed I could see myself supporting an amendment like this. We clearly need one like this, unfortunately this is not the amendment we need.
Respectfully
Aggie

notyoueither · July 9, 2002, 01:53

Aggie has a point. Joint positions could result in chaos if the two do not see eye to eye on most every issue, and cannot decide on a common front in such cases.

Tacit approval of the history guys is OK, they do not do much (other than the most important stuff for the feel of the game). However, enshrining chaos in the constitution is another thing.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
OK, OK, OK... wait on this one.

As far a ministerial votes are concerned... I vote yes provided that shared posts have 1 indivisable vote.

If they are an even number and they split evenly, no vote. If they are an odd number, the majority of their votes count as 1 vote.

Each office = 1 vote. Therefore, if there are 3 VPs, then each one gets 1/3 of a vote.

If an office is unable to make a decision (dissenting members), then the job will be taken over by those currently in the turnchat, or by the President if it's not a turnchat. Needless to say, if the 'office' is unable to come to a decision, it is to be taken over by others. Candidates should be aware of that before they choose any 'running mates'. It would be the candidates' fault, not the Constitution's.

mtgillespie · July 9, 2002, 10:05

I voted no in it's current form. This "joint ministers" idea will just become a rod for our own backs, and makes things far too complicated. Aggie is right on this issue. If the workload becomes too great, ministers can appoint their own deputies/clerks/assistants or whatever else they want to call them, without an election. However, they should not have power in a turnchat, even if the minister is absent, nor should the deputy take over if the minister leaves early.

In the case of the historian(s), this should not be a ministerial post, as it holds no power. It's already an administrative role, and should be considered as such. if that needs a seperate ammendment, that's fine.

I also agree with Aggie on the ministers deciding in the case of a tie. this all needs to be clearer.

punkbass2000 · July 9, 2002, 13:15

I agree with Aggie's complaints and accordingly must vote 'no'.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 13:18

Why do people complain about these things after I've already put it up for a vote...

Sheesh.

There was a reason I bumped the discussion thread one last time, and only 1 person responded...

LordImpact · July 9, 2002, 13:27

Quote:

[SIZE=1]
In the case of the historian(s), this should not be a ministerial post, as it holds no power. It's already an administrative role, and should be considered as such. if that needs a seperate ammendment, that's fine.

I don't think Historian should be a ministerial position either. The position is in fact listed under "Other" on the government thread isnt it? We don't call the historian(s) Minister(s) of History do we? They don't make an decisions when it comes to playing the game.

As for having two ministers for one position, I don't agree with it. it seems like a waste of manpower and time, and it would only cause problems down the road. If someone needs help they can employ an assistant.

--Impact

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 13:43

From what I know, Historian was a ministerial position long before I joined the game, so don't look at me.

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 14:05

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
1) The following paragraph was too vague;
The winner of the election is determined by a simple majority vote: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a run-off between the tied candidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins.

Did you mean a plurality, so if we had three people running and the results are
a-5
b-7
c-6
Does b win or do we have a runoff between b and c.

Under what circumstances do the ministers vote on a winner?

Unless I'm missing something here, I see no problem with the amendment. Simple majority wins, therefore, in your case, Candidate b wins outright. If b and c both had 7 votes, that is where the Ministers' votes are taken also.

And as for Constitutional rulings, this brings up a point that I consider simple common sense, but may well be contested by the sticklers for legality here (tho' God knows why). IMO, in the case of confusion within the Constitution (where the rules aren't quite as specifically worded as to cover every eventuality), should the Judges rule based on what they believe is intended by the Amendment? Of course, the Judges could not rule something that is specifically forbidden in the Constitution (unless the people grant them that power), but if it is not clarified perfectly, should they have a little leeway here?

Example:

Let us assume for a moment that Foreign Ministers can appoint Ambassadors to do some of their job. It is they who have the sole right to appoint these people, as worded in the Constitution.

If an Ambassador resigned and appointed a replacement, that was subsequently accepted by the Foreign Minister, this is un-Constitutional by the above, as it was not the Minister who named the person. Thus someone could legitimately bring this before the Judiciary. Although strictly illegal, the Foreign Minister accepted the appointment, so there should be no conflict but for this loophole. Instead of excessively rewording amendments ad infinitum, should the Judiciary have the power to rule on what was intended with the rule - ie that the Ambassador is appointed either directly by the Foreign Minister, or by someone else, and they become official only with the Foreign Minister's approval?

It is IMO that this should be so, as we seem to be getting to the level of detail that such an issue (though it looks ridiculous now) may well come up, and must be accounted for.

And why not consider Historian to be part of all of this? It is an elected post like all the others, and thus ideally goes to (in the view of the people) an able candidate, who should be equally able to cast a deciding vote like the rest of the Cabinet.

I vote YES in its current form.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 14:17

Thank you for that, Mwia.

Is it really necassary to word every last minute detail of the Constitution so that any possible case is covered? Isn't that why we're creating a Court? Come on people, whatever happened to the idea of "a limited Constitution"... the option for "we should have a strict set of rules" was right on my poll, but people voted for a limited set of rules instead... We could make amendments covering anything and everything that could possible come up. That's not what I want, and I'm sure that's not what most other people want either...

Will 5001 · July 9, 2002, 17:26

I am going to vote "no" since the team idea for election will result in chaos, there are loads of ministers as it is, this way there would be more ministers than citizens (well not quite

)!!!

Aggie · July 9, 2002, 17:28

Trip and MWIA the problem with that paragraph wasn't just the vaguesness, It is the word majority. According to the pargraph
in the example
a-5
b-7
c-6
NONE of the candidates will win since b does not have a majority, b has a plurality, a majority means more than half the votes. This sounds awfully picky I know and I am sorry, but if this amendment is passed there is a good chance that many elections with three or more candidates will end up being decided by ministers and that is very undemocratic. The one word "majority" causes the problem. I am not oppossed to vagueness since that is why the US constitution has done so well. However vagueness + a word used mistakenly(and it is a very common error) = kaos.
Of course if this does pass we can quickly just pass an amendment to change the word majority to plurality and that would fix it all.

I must have missed the other discussion on joint candidates because this is the first I heard of it, If I has seen it earlier I would have complained then too.
Best Regards and Good Luck
Aggie

MrWhereItsAt · July 9, 2002, 22:00

Aggie - I see the word "majority" as applied to an election in a Democratic game as NOT necessarily an "outright majority" (50%+), but as the most number of votes for one option. I don't think this has been disputed in either game since the concept's inception here about 6 months ago.

It is a valid point that perhaps some people may use this as an excuse to contest an election result, but I hope this is not so, as it is pretty clear what the amendment is trying to do and actually means. If we have such an occurrence, I expect the Judiciary would glare at the one who brought this before them and tell them off for wasting their time.

This is just further evidence for a level-headed Judiciary to decide on the seriousness (or silliness) of Constitutional issues.

Robber Baron · July 9, 2002, 22:45

And by the way, we're creating a record here of our meaning (sort of like "legislative intent" in the U.S. system) to guide our court in the event of confusion down the road.

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 22:49

As Mwia said, it is the court's decision. The court will be the only one to decide whether a decision (or election/poll) is legal or not, not the nit pickers trying to shove what they want down the throats of the people (hopefully none of them will get appointed

).

Aggie · July 9, 2002, 23:31

I'm not trying to be technical. I am just trying to head off trouble in the future, Right now we all agree where this great country is headed. However I can forsee a future where there are real idealogical issues and people will think that if they lose, the country will be gone by the next election. Now I doubt this will be the case, but by making it clear in the constitution now, we close a potential loophole that a loser with friends on the court could utilize to cause problems. I hope I haven't offended or irritated anybody by bringing up these points. Now we've all said our piece on that and its up to the people to decide if this and the issue on joint candidates(the big problem issue I think,but that had been discussed elsewhere) are enough to deny this amendment the 2/3 necessary votes. Of course even if it is defeated, an amendment w/o the problem areas could quickly be written up and approved(maybe even before the end of the elections).
Thank you for your time and responses
Aggie

Jon Shafer · July 9, 2002, 23:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
I'm not trying to be technical. I am just trying to head off trouble in the future, Right now we all agree where this great country is headed. However I can forsee a future where there are real idealogical issues and people will think that if they lose, the country will be gone by the next election. Now I doubt this will be the case, but by making it clear in the constitution now, we close a potential loophole that a loser with friends on the court could utilize to cause problems. I hope I haven't offended or irritated anybody by bringing up these points. Now we've all said our piece on that and its up to the people to decide if this and the issue on joint candidates(the big problem issue I think,but that had been discussed elsewhere) are enough to deny this amendment the 2/3 necessary votes. Of course even if it is defeated, an amendment w/o the problem areas could quickly be written up and approved(maybe even before the end of the elections).
Thank you for your time and responses
Aggie

Except for a little something in the Constitution that says you can't post the same poll for another three weeks...

Aggie · July 9, 2002, 23:58

Trip I stand corrected on my last sentence, I was hoping that since the wording would be different and it would not be the same amendment we could get it done, however since its general purpose would be the same we can't. Still we went throught the first elections ok, its still likely we could do these as well, and then reintroduce it later in three weeks.(Ofcourse it still might pass now, it seems to be very close) Hopefully we will have a judiciary in place to solve any problems.
Aggie

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 00:04

I don't think anything is so pressing Trip. Is it?

Consensus seems to be to allow the history guys to embark on their voyage together. It is not seen to be a critical issue (yet).

The ammendment would be just as easily resubmitted 3 weeks from now. The nation will not crumble.

Such is the danger of springing wording and concepts on the people without consensus about the issue before hand. At least, I don't recall any discussion of potentially having 3 VPs and 2 SMCs.

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 00:19

I just wanted to get it in before the next elections start, with good timing.

I suppose as long as we can create a court before too long, they'll be able to handle anything serious that arises.

*Submits that amendment so that it'll be done by the time the elections start*

J/k.

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 00:27

I don't think anybody is going to challenge the history guys running together. If they do, they can post a poll for the people to decide. That's the beauty of consensus.

Those who disagree can make a formal application to the people. The people can judge. I think I know how the people would judge in that particular case.

Please don't rush the court ammendment. As it stands, we have a court. The will of the people through a properly constructed poll.

The court is a good idea, I fear though that we may be inventing knots for rope that does not yet exist, and we may not have considered the proper knot for some of the rope at hand.

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 00:37

Actually, we don't have a court yet.

People have voted in an unofficial poll to have a court added through an amendment... but that doesn't mean we have one yet, or that we will have one at all.

I have to say in regards to concerns that people are brining up in this thread that I don't disagree with what's being proposed. Yes, it's good to be clear and definitive. Sometimes it can be a bit much though... My concern is that I bumped the thread one last time, got 1 problem, modified it, waited another day... nothing, so posted it. And now suddenly, there's a whirlwind of support against (even if people are vastly in the majority, that doesn't get amendments passed unless it's 2/3). I just hope people take a look at the discussion threads first and read the exact wording that the amendment will consist of first, before I try and post it. Those are the kinds of things that are to be weeded out in the discussion threads, and not the polls.

NYE, J/k means just kidding you know.

I don't plan on submitting the court amendment for another week at least. We're carving out the main outline of what it will look like, but there are still many things to be added and refined. I expected it to be the most well thought out and important, if not the longest amendment yet (so what if there's only a couple, I think it'll be the most important for quite a while

). So don't get yourself excited, I won't be rushing things.

notyoueither · July 10, 2002, 01:30

I read your j/k. Hense I'm being nice.

But really Trip. The only problem your ammendment is running into is due to a too hasty addition of an idea that anyone who considers the implications must reject. That and the unfortunate use of the word 'majority'.

Having 2 SMCs would be absurd. This was not discussed anywhere except in relation to the history guys. Forgive me, but most people regard the history guys as very unthreatening.

However, the possibility of having dueling 'official' polls about the conduct of a war because Uber can not agree with Uber2 about troop movements in a campaign would be nothing, if not chaotic. In fact, it would bring the game to a stand still for 4 or more days.

The moral is not to rush these things.

Nubclear · July 10, 2002, 04:49

And while Tassadar was reading through the forums, he was forced to squint his eyes as the first rays of the sun hit his eyes. This was not only an indiciation to him, but an indication to the people that this is the final dawn that this poll will survive. In a few hours, the poll shall be put to rest and its results cast in stone for all eternity....

And so far, it doesn't look like it's going to pass.

Spiffor · July 10, 2002, 06:24

Although I'm ticked with the "ministers decide who wins" thing, I voted YES, and I strongly urge to vote yes.
This amendment is well written, adresses in a clear way some issues (such as the confusing "terms in a row" issue).
While this amendment will have minimal political impact, it will have a great impact in organization, and it will let us be more organized when elections come.

Good work Trip

Togas · July 10, 2002, 15:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other.

I voted no because I am not in favor of this part.

We do not need to impose term limits at this point in the game. No one player has yet to become a "career politician" and we may discover that we want to keep a particular minister beyond the 2 term limit due to his or her great talents and contributions to the Democracy.

--Togas