Election: President - Page 9

civman2000 · July 16, 2002, 09:23

wow 2 new votes for ninot (i know one is probably trickey who just joined and joined the DIA and i know is NOT a DL) and he's leading by 3

MarkG · July 16, 2002, 09:35

Quote:

Originally posted by wervdon
Any chance you could tell us what the vote is minus those who hadn't signed up for the game once the poll closes?

sure, once the poll closes

Epistax · July 16, 2002, 09:54

This might cause a massive flamewave, but we could just remove every vote by someone that voted before they became a member (although something tells me that everyone who voted without being member, still isn't one).

The only problem with this is we'd probably have a tie :P

wervdon · July 16, 2002, 09:59

Thanks MarkG, There's at least a 50/50 chance that knowing the results with and without the extra voters will let us put this to rest

Papa Chubby · July 16, 2002, 10:01

That would probably be the most fair to do, removing all those that are not members of the democracy game. Then we would have to follow up on this and put it into the constitution, prefferably into the Amendment that Trip has proposed. Furthermore it should be clarified what constitutes an majority vote, whether it is as little as 1 vote, or maybe a minimum of 5.

Jonny · July 16, 2002, 10:29

The election is still close, Ninot is leading by 4.

Oh, by the way, this is my 469th post, if anyone really cares.

wervdon · July 16, 2002, 10:33

I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)

But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue...

Aro · July 16, 2002, 10:53

50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fits the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,

Quote:

Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)

But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue...

I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!

Aro · July 16, 2002, 11:03

50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fit the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,

Quote:

Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)

But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue...

I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!

Aro · July 16, 2002, 11:03

50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this is in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fits the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,

Quote:

Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)

But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue...

I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!

mtgillespie · July 16, 2002, 11:10

OK, we get the point

Papa Chubby · July 16, 2002, 11:20

Right now it is looking as if our little crisis is blowing over. Though this does show us that our system of election is far from perfect.

Aro · July 16, 2002, 11:35

I'm very sorry by the triple post. My fault, I had some troubles trying to correct my bad english...

Kuciwalker · July 16, 2002, 11:39

WOW!!! A FOUR-POINT LEAD!!!

(snicker)

Aro · July 16, 2002, 11:57

Skywalker,
3 points, now. But there is a tendency, do you agreed?
Ninot will win, probabily . All over this poll he had one or two votes ahead.

jdjdjd · July 16, 2002, 12:20

Yes lets get the court going, see this thread.

Also, specifically, check out my post on that page, with ideas for amendments.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...9&pagenumber=2

GodKing · July 16, 2002, 12:54

A suggestion.

If, and only if, it is a tie when all is said and done, trip is still president UNTIL he can nominate and have one justice / arbitrator approved. (I say arbitrator at this sage because we still wont have an official judge position in the near future). This person would, based on the constitution as it currently stands, review the situation. They would contact Mark G., as appropriate, and have access to whatever Mark is able (or willing) to provide. They would then decide a course of action, writing up their reasoning behind it (while still protecting confidentiality of the voters). Their decision would be final - no appeals. no recounts. no nothing. Harsh, yes. And the person so chosen could conceviably take considerable flack. So be it.

The other fair and reasonable suggestion I have so far heard is to let them share the position. Judging from the comments and the poll, about 70% of the people do not like this idea. Although most people think both candidates are good, they still would prefer only one president.

This is a clear situation showing why we should have a judiciary. I myself would like to be a part of it. But please note that by posting this suggestion, I hereby remove myself from consideration for this arbitor position. (Its not that I wouldn't mind doing it, it is just that I can see some people claiming a conflict of interest in both proposing this solution and then being the one to impliment it, expecially as I have previously made my interest known as being one of the judges.)

DAVOUT · July 16, 2002, 13:29

It seems that voters were expected to post something so demonstrating their citizenship ; I therefore proudly do it.

Inverse Icarus · July 16, 2002, 13:39

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
and it goes without saying that i have a full list of who voted for what that can be made public if the people decides so

see, i told you he had to have one

this is mysql isnt it?

if you have the time (i know you dont) you could search it for those 90 whatever people that are registerred with the game, and tally their votes.

if you must make the list public, i'm not sure if the people would like that. some people like that it's a secret ballot.

i dont see any other way though... releasing them to me would piss off the DIA people

GodKing · July 16, 2002, 13:41

Welcome.

The thread to sign up is here: http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...72#post1127672

I never seam to get these links right. So if it doesn't work, look in the demo game forum, it is one of the stickied to the top threads (thus on the first page) and it says something like "welcome and please sign up...."
Glad to have ya join us.

Aro · July 16, 2002, 14:01

GodKing,
You certainly deserves to be a part of our judiciary. It seems to me that you have the necessary spirit of fair and the abbility to conciliate controversial points of view. Besides, you care about people's will, and that's a great quality to any judge.
And, Davout, you express my feelings. Thanks.

Captain · July 16, 2002, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Aggie
. I do have a suggestion for the next election though, perhaps we should have a residency requiremnt so to speak. In short you must have been registered when the voting started to participate. Just an idea.
Aggie

just wanted to highlight another good idea from Aggie

jdjdjd · July 16, 2002, 14:11

Yes, Godking it is a good idea, and of course you know you would have my support on the bench. I too would love to be a judge, but the main thing is a court be set up., so that situations like this have a readily available realm for resolution.

But first, we should consider the latest proposal by Timeline, and perhaps vote on it. A split of the month for the tied candidates, instead of a shared presidency.

Otheriwse, the independent arbitrator is a good idea (so long as Ken Starr is not playing the game).

Oh, and what does this cat of yours eat...he's so finicky.

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 14:41

Quote:

50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters

Yes, 50%=1 is actually the definition of a majority vote. The system we have is for a plurality vote, or just seeing who gets the most votes. We will need top give our election process (not just presidential either) a overhaul, so a situation like this wont happen again. A Supreme Court would be nice to have in order to improvise solutions from constitutional interpretations.

Kman

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 14:45

As for the list of people who voted, I think that should be kept confidential, except it should be used by the Supreme court as "evidence" if we choose that route of solving this dilema. (In otherwords, judges will need to see the list, but will keep their mouths sealed about it and specifics on how they reached there verdict)

Kman

GodKing · July 16, 2002, 14:54

Kitty likes to eat bananas, of all varieties. She also goes for Chocolate (which is bad for dog, so be carefull), Milk, meat of almost any kind - as long as it is fresh kill, and this new product called purina cat chow.

The split is also a good idea. And I support you for judge as well. Good luck.

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 15:26

Thank you very much Mark. I for one really appreciate the time you are spending on this issue. A link between the registered list and polls in this forum would be excellent. It would solve many problems.

Uber, I think he indicated he would do as we collectively asked. It would behoove us to find some collective wisdom, in a hurry.

It is good to know that this scourge is not being caused by DLs. However, I agree that 30 or 40 voters as passers-by is concerning too.

PS. M&Ms are good too.

Aro · July 16, 2002, 15:28

Kman,
Very good posts.

If I'm not wrong, in many democracies confidential issues and the 'need to see' are in the constitution or in the code of laws (in my country, for exemple), but only if the correct judicial process runs. We will need to define this (correct judicial process), of course.
It's a exceptional case and certainly, in our little and beatiful jungle country, will not happen very much, I hope so.
Oh no! Will we need lawyers????

BTW, when we will restart the game?

GodKing · July 16, 2002, 15:32

No problem if we only have one lawyer. But if a second one comes along, then we have a problem!!!!!

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 15:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Aro
BTW, when we will restart the game?

Restart? We haven't stopped. If a concensus cannot be reach quickly, we do have a VP.

But as it stands now, the one who gets the most votes should take office officially. I am sure that either will go along with the solutions being sought in other threads.