Do You Approve of the "Two President" Decision?

Timeline · July 16, 2002, 00:49

This is a formal poll by the Government of Apolyonia on the "Two President" matter. This poll will in no way force action or have governmental authority to change decisions made by the Presidential candidates, it is designed to ascertain support for their decision.

It is assumed, however, the candidates will consider the results of this poll, and will effect their course based upon the general will of the people.

This poll ends in 3 days.

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 00:54

Yes. Peace would be a very good idea right now.

We have enough serious questions to answer.

BTW, I would be in favour of discounting this term as being applicable for term limits for Trip, Ninot and yourself. IF the 3 of you agree that would be appropriate.

/Edit. That term limit thing would of course then require an official poll passing by 67%.

Ninot · July 16, 2002, 00:56

I can agree to all of what NYE said.

Timeline · July 16, 2002, 00:59

Since you have both given your opinions, perhaps I should give mine.

This is not what I signed on for. Our nation was designed to have one President, not two. No nation on earth has two presidents because it doesn't work, lol.

By doing this Ninot and Trip ignored the people's will, sorry to say. One of them should have posted a poll first to see what people wanted to do, instead of just announcing it.

This is not right and I for one Disapprove of this action.

Epistax · July 16, 2002, 01:01

The voting system is far from perfect. If even five votes were faked (I doubt even by either of the candidates themselves) then the poll is useless. We want both? We get both.

I'd say have your cake and eat it too, but I hate that expression.

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 01:01

That is unfortunate Timeline.

Do you have a peaceful alternative to suggest for a highly suspect poll?

Timeline · July 16, 2002, 01:07

I don't find anything about it suspect. There were simply large numbers of uninformed voters, who saw the news link, and voted along lines to keep things tied, so it would be exciting.

It shows we need reform, yes. But it does not negate the poll. The poll must be honored no matter what the outcome. If we do not honor the poll, we are ignoring the people's will.

Just because 50% voted for Ninot and 50% for Trip, does not mean they wanted TWO Presidents, that is absurd.

Think about it before you vote, do you really want TWO Presidents? Do you realize the potential chaos that could serve.

Trip and Ninot are both good leaders, but our nation was not designed to have two Presidents, only one.

Moral Hazard · July 16, 2002, 01:07

Let the poll stand, it's outcome will be the outcome nothing in this world is perfect. We should work to correct this problem in the future.

Timeline · July 16, 2002, 01:23

By doing this, they are effectivly Electing Themselves President. They are totally ignoring an official poll, and the people's votes.

Come on People, don't let this be a friggen tie like the prez race.

SAY LOUD AND CLEAR WE WILL NOT ALLOW ANYONE TO IGNORE OUR POLLS!

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 01:31

Chaos, you say, Timeline...Chaos. Look at the chaos this "democracy" has inspired. I agree that we need a single pres, better yet, we should have only one leader period (or exclamation point, rather)! I say we instill our fate into the steady iron grip of a dictator! Viva La Revolucion

Kman

P.S. In all seriousness, I agree with Timeline. As long as this can be resolved in a timely manner, I think only one president there should be. I mean, what if Ninot and Trip have a disagreement over something and can't resolve it? Then we have situation, a bad situation, that would never have happened if there was only one President, unless of coarse that one president was scitzophrenic. So let the people speak through this poll, and let the ingeniousness of democracy reign.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 01:36

Yes.

The thing we need to do now as a nation is come together, not disrupt things. What happens in the case that this poll ends up saying "no"? Then what?

This is a step in uniting the nation instead of squabbling over petty political issues. There is no rule saying that this can or can't be done. Even if one of us wins, we can 'share' the responsibility of the office without 'officially' holding it. Is there going to be another poll saying that only the person elected can have anything to do with the decisions? Are we really going to do something as extreme as that?

Kloreep · July 16, 2002, 01:45

I certainly agree that such a teaming would be legal, Trip. But would it be desirable? As Kramerman pointed out, there could be trouble - and maybe even worse than the current shakeup - if you and Ninot have a major disagreement. I suppose the officially elected President could just take solitary control then - but what's the point of a team then?

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 01:54

Quote:

I suppose the officially elected President could just take solitary control then - but what's the point of a team then?

I second that point.

G'nite - I'll be interested tomarrow after noon on how things turn out.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 01:55

I think most people fail to realize truly how much work the job of President is. And I'm talking about more than putting up polls, discussing things, etc. which is the job of VP. There are things that are explicitly part of the job of President that are very time consuming. Having two Presidents not only alleviates this problem, but also gives a newcomer a chance to see what the job is like.

This way, the people who want to give someone a chance get their way.

And the people who think things have gone well and should stay the same their way also.

If there is a disagreement and Ninot firmly believes where he stands is right, then I will stand down. My time here is coming to an end, and I need as little controversy as possible so I'm not permanently damaged when I go back to the real world. I have firm confidence in the abilities of Ninot. However, I would also like to see many of the things that can only be done by the President done that I want completed.

If there is a definite problem with having two Presidents, then I will honorable step down and give Ninot the full position.

There. I'm willing to stake my spot on what I feel will be a smooth and beneficial term.

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 02:01

I see no peaceful alternative Timeline.

Ninot and Trip offered peace and an orderly transition from an inherently chaotic situation.

All you offer is discord and chaos.

Ninot · July 16, 2002, 02:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Timeline

It shows we need reform, yes. But it does not negate the poll. The poll must be honored no matter what the outcome. If we do not honor the poll, we are ignoring the people's will.

Just because 50% voted for Ninot and 50% for Trip, does not mean they wanted TWO Presidents, that is absurd.

Think about it before you vote, do you really want TWO Presidents? Do you realize the potential chaos that could serve.

I agreed to Trips plan, and I still do.

Currently, the peoples will is being decided by one person, who may or may not ever visit this forum again. That is a dictatorship in itself.

Half of the voters voted one way, half voted the other way, and 1 voter makes the decision? I think thats the worst way to decide on a president, and this way seems to be much better.

There is no REAL democractic decision when one vote makes the difference.. that is just dumb luck for one of the candidates.

And, if you ask me, the "caos" of two presidents would be much less severe (if at all present) in comparisson to a president who will probably have less than 50% support at the end of their term.

And what if it ties before the election is "officialy" over? Do you think there is a great way out of it then, other than what is proposed?

Moral Hazard · July 16, 2002, 02:12

NYE:
Your not making any sense. If this poll proves that the peoples will is against copresidency. And Trip does step down, the Ninot will be president. It remains a peaceful solution. The only way there will be chaos is the candidates don't honor this poll. That's their decision.

CYall Tommorow

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 02:14

or... the mischief makers return to taint this poll too.

Moral Hazard · July 16, 2002, 02:17

Polling is the only way we have of determining the people's will, until we can come up with a better solution. We must honor it.

Nubclear · July 16, 2002, 02:17

In my humble opinion, we should follow the results of the election and have one president, one commander in chief in charge of Apolyton.

Two presidents can conflict with each other, trying to tell each other what to do and claiming higher authority. This will slow down the process of the game, and can even bring it to a standstill.

And even if it does not, if we completly ignore the results of the Presidential election, can we truely call ourselves a "Democracy"? A democracy does not ignore it's people, it embraces them and honors their decisions, not dismisses them because an election is close or because there is a possibility of fraud.

We cannot let the democratic process be destroyed by this alleged "tampering" of our elections. We must let the democratic process run its course, as any less than that would be despotic.

Tassadar

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 02:21

btw. How valid is a poll where the last 5 pages (half as of now) are splattered with "This Poll is Invalid"

I notice not many people have voted since that started.

How valid is that poll?

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 02:22

more btw. Not to mention the people spouting off (and voting) who are not on the list of citizens.

Stranger still... Valid?

Kramerman · July 16, 2002, 02:29

Quote:

Originally posted by Tassadar5000
In my humble opinion, we should follow the results of the election and have one president, one commander in chief in charge of Apolyton.

Two presidents can conflict with each other, trying to tell each other what to do and claiming higher authority. This will slow down the process of the game, and can even bring it to a standstill.

And even if it does not, if we completly ignore the results of the Presidential election, can we truely call ourselves a "Democracy"? A democracy does not ignore it's people, it embraces them and honors their decisions, not dismisses them because an election is close or because there is a possibility of fraud.

We cannot let the democratic process be destroyed by this alleged "tampering" of our elections. We must let the democratic process run its course, as any less than that would be despotic.

Tassadar

Bravo!

And coming from a Russian too...

Inverse Icarus · July 16, 2002, 02:33

just tell me which person i have to deal with during turnchats.

Jon Shafer · July 16, 2002, 02:42

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
just tell me which person i have to deal with during turnchats.

You can be sure that if it only end up being one of us, he'll be twice as bad as two of us would be.

GoodFella · July 16, 2002, 02:47

NOt an easy decision, technically it isn't unconstitutional as far as I can see. Both are qualified, and it could work with both I think...I don't know, need to think it over.

And why can't I get into Live Chat!!!!!

GoodFella · July 16, 2002, 02:49

Let's just hope there isn't another tie!

Kloreep · July 16, 2002, 02:49

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
btw. How valid is a poll where the last 5 pages (half as of now) are splattered with "This Poll is Invalid"

I notice not many people have voted since that started.

How valid is that poll?

So... you're saying that if several people regularly post in a poll thread that the poll is not valid, it isn't?

A poll should be judged by its validity in accordance with the constitution, not by a handful of posters.

Quote:

more btw. Not to mention the people spouting off (and voting) who are not on the list of citizens.

Stranger still... Valid?

A good point... but how should we decide this election, then? We'll have to deal with the issue of suspected vote fraud or set it poison the game - unless we stop official polls altogether, which would mean dictatorship. (Though an admittedly large one if anyone who wanted to be a "candidate" could be part of a ministry/office.

)

Edit: didn't complete my first sentence. Whoops.

Timeline · July 16, 2002, 02:51

Well, at least we are doing this democratically now, rather than just having 2 people coming up and announcing "we will both be President".

It is really the people's right to decide, not theirs.

So debate on my friends! And may the beaming light of Democracy rippen our glorious Bananas!

Malthis · July 16, 2002, 03:02

The Apolytonians are Revolting
Your Civilization is falling into Anarchy.

But seriously, this poll is a good idea, but is bound to be tampered with as well. Not that our two great presidents care what the results are...I think they're both part of the new world order...
I still think the "tie" should be broken by the Ministers vote. Anyone feel that way too?