Amendment III: Election Standards - Page 2

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 15:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
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

Unfortunately, nearly everyone will oppose this view, so I'm sorry, this part will probably never change.

I can see what you mean though, after 1 term in office, I'm pretty worn out on this, after a possible 2 and I'll probably toast.

Kloreep · July 10, 2002, 18:29

I voted no. I'm happy with everything, except the ministerial team.

I have no problem with the atmospheric position of historian being shared; in fact, now that the Tassadar/History Guy team seems almost assured, I wonder why it was ever made a single-person office in the first place. And I guess an extra VP would be okay, though I don't see the point. However, why have multiple people in other offices? One point of ministries is to break down the workload of decisions among many people; if we need teams for an office, isn't that a sign that it needs to be broken down into two positions, or that assistants are needed? The other point, as I see it, is to have someone who is the final word in every matter (though things do get blurry with foreign affairs); if you have two people in equal positions, authority becomes unclear.

Puupertti Ruma · July 10, 2002, 19:33

For what it seems, this amendment should have been done in smaller parts, for most of the people agree in most of Trip's suggestion, and disagree with a single sentence.

I myself disagree with the ministry teams, and the term limits. Ministry teams hamper minitry's actions because of the authority reasons, and if someone is really that crazy to want to be in a ministry more than 2 terms, let them.

But still, even when I disagree with these things, I strongly believe that this amendment is well done and more than sufficient at the next elections.

And I am quite aware that my post will not affect any votes, cause it was sent so late. But I think I needed to say this.

Thud · July 10, 2002, 22:10

It's an amendment. That means you should vote Yes, and so I'll vote Yes.

Jon Shafer · July 10, 2002, 22:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Thud
It's an amendment. That means you should vote Yes, and so I'll vote Yes.

Interesting reasoning.

Thud · July 10, 2002, 22:46

Better Reasonsing:
I like the more restricted term limits, and I certainly don't think that candidates will abuse the joint candidate provision. If I was to run for a minister slot, i wouldn't want five different people running with me at all. I also agree that each and every amendment shouldn't be scrutenized to the point of tears. If the American constitution guarantees freedom of speech without bantering on for a page and a half about it, then so can this constitution. And when that fails, courts can define and interpret it (i.e. No yelling fire in a crowded movie theatre)

LordImpact · July 10, 2002, 23:00

The US Constitution also has around 4,500 words excluding amendments. Apolytonia's Constitution on the other hand has roughly 2,000 words without amendments and is rather vague. These amendments that we are including would have been included in the body of the Constitution if this were a real government. Therefore, lengthy amendments are necessary. Also, there is no court to interprit the Constitution yet, so specifics are vital

--Impact

Sheik · July 11, 2002, 00:25

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

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

The ministers decide who wins is completely wrong.

I voted NO. This is well-written and we do need an amendment of this sort but for no it has to many ideas that I do not support. I urge everyone who has problems with this to vote NO. We can fix it then it can go up for another poll.

Spiffor you are right it will be good for organization but it is has enough problems to make me vote no.

Trip you have done good work and have been writing alot. Good work

. However this amendment still needs fine tuning.

Jon Shafer · July 11, 2002, 02:37

Quote:

Originally posted by LordImpact
The US Constitution also has around 4,500 words excluding amendments. Apolytonia's Constitution on the other hand has roughly 2,000 words without amendments and is rather vague. These amendments that we are including would have been included in the body of the Constitution if this were a real government. Therefore, lengthy amendments are necessary. Also, there is no court to interprit the Constitution yet, so specifics are vital

There are only a few differences between the real-life Constitution and our Constitution. Just some things regarding who can have firearms, who can vote, if you can own real slaves, etc.

Remind me not to write any more amendments.

You guys are hopeless.

Robber Baron · July 11, 2002, 07:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip

There are only a few differences between the real-life Constitution and our Constitution. Just some things regarding who can have firearms, who can vote, if you can own real slaves, etc.

Does this mean we don't get firearms?

punkbass2000 · July 11, 2002, 10:09

We don't even have firearms.

Jon Shafer · July 11, 2002, 10:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Robber Baron
Does this mean we don't get firearms?

It's not in the Constitution yet is it?

*Starts writing up an amendment*

I'll take away all your freedom yet!

Jonny · July 11, 2002, 10:18

I voted NO.

There is no need for joint ministers. It'd probably cause chaos.

I also see no need to lower term limits.

Papa Chubby · July 11, 2002, 10:29

I will vote no simply because I see no reason for minister positions to be co-hosted, so to speak. It will only allow the possibility of discord in departments, isn´t it enough that they will get to have aide´s to help them. I´m also against the amendment that proposes that ministers get to choose which runner-up gets to be elected, there should simply be a new poll. Besides if the minister would get to choose, what set of ministers would it be: the ones that just got choosen or the ones that just formed the last government.

Jon Shafer · July 11, 2002, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Jonny
I also see no need to lower term limits.

What's that?

civman2000 · July 11, 2002, 10:39

Quote:

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.

I suppose it's been the needed 3 weeks for a repoll on term limits, and I think they should exist, but I don't think we should include them in hte amendment. Also, I think you should be able to run for more than one position.

THere should also be a section in this amendment that covers what happens if there's only 1 candidate.

In sum, I voted NO

WhiteBandit · July 13, 2002, 05:10

I disagree with the issue of term limits. The ultimate term limit is the voters themselves. If they are honestly sick and tired of a career politician, then they will make it known. I think it ultimately hurts if we have a great candidate who can only run two terms.

Trips has said that the majority of people approve of term limits, which is probably true, but I find this an interesting logic. Like I said, they are the ultimate delegator of term limits, why should this be in the constitution. If you are tired of someone, vote them out of office.

Also, multiple people running as a team for one office seems to be a flaky idea as well. I'm not sure what the logic behind this is. This amendment should probably be rewritten.