Do You Approve of the "Two President" Decision?

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Malthis
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?

Why would you want to do that? Sounds like you'd like to impeach whoever's elected instead.

[Timeline]

I have a counter proposal I just thought up.

I suggest Ninot and Trip split the month, one serving as president for two weeks, then the other taking over.

This would allow us clear headlike leadership, with little confusion and less time needed for both to discuss matters during turnchats.

Also, alot less rules would needed, just the times of when the mini-term starts and ends, and who goes first.

There would be no need to designate who has jurisdiction during such-and-such a time, and etc.

I feel this would be best or the "Ministers Vote" as Malthis suggested.

Two Presidents just isn't going to work.

[notyoueither]

I could support Timeline's proposal.

[Harovan]

Yes, I like it much more than the 2 president solution.

[wervdon]

I like timelines proposal better than 2 presidents too. While Im pretty sure Trip and Ninot can get along and do a good job as co-presidents, im not sure all the other ministers can handle it And even if they can, its bound to slow down our turn chats. The other option is for them to just take turns managing the turn chats and whoever is in charge of the current turn chat is the sole president for that day.

And we should seriously reform the election system as soon as this election is over to avoid this again

Anyways, I don't much care which solution is chosen so long as it isn't confusing and doesn't slow down our pace.

[theViking]

Timelines proposal sounds good to me.

[FrustratedPoet]

Originally posted by Timeline

I suggest Ninot and Trip split the month, one serving as president for two weeks, then the other taking over.

That sounds like a good plan to me.

[Papa Chubby]

Splitting up the presidency sounds much better, then Trips and Ninots decision to assume command. My only problem with this is that it still does not recognise the poll as valid. Are we saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush should have co-hosted as presidents, or better yet, each taken two years. Doing this because the voting was simply to unclear.

[Guardian]

I voted "Disapprove" to the "Two Presidents" thing as it stands, but I might support Timeline's proposal.

[Papa Chubby]

The two presidents cannot be allowed, in fact nor can Timelines. It is simply not coherent with our constitution. If the poll reveals a winner, even if it is by one vote, then there is nothing on our constitution that states that this poll is invalid. The fact that people wrote that it was invalid, and the fact that some people believe that there was some cheating, does not change the undeniable fact that it was valid.

[mtgillespie]

Originally posted by GoodFella
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.

Not unconstitutional? This election is an official poll, which is not an amendment. If there is a winner, even by 1 vote, that person is president.

The people voted for a constitution. We can't just throw it out of the window, because we don't like the way things work out. If there is no proof of vote rigging, and we don't accept this result, we might as well give up the game, because in that circumstance anyone could declare any poll invalid.

If you don't like the system, change it. Say we need 60% for an election. Say people have to vote with a post, rather than in a poll. Say people have to have been registered a certain amount of time before they can vote. Any idea can be decided upon, but it will be done within our constitution . No exceptions. I'm sorry if this vote has been rigged, and i'm sorry for whoever get's the presidency this term, as they face a fight for acceptance, but it must be 1 president, for 1 term, decided by this poll.

If this poll has a winner, and that person is not declared sole president for the whole term, i for one will leave this game. We have a constitution. Our decisions must abide by it, or we are no better than people who vote rig, or people who play ahead, and our entire democracy is invalid.

[wervdon]

I think this might be both an acceptable and constitutional solution.

We accept whoever wins the poll for president as president, but only until we ammend our constitution for election reform. At which point the "president" resigns his post resulting in new elections to be held asap. Turn chats can be handled by the president (in whatever manner he chooses that keeps with our constitution), after his resignation and prior to the new elections conclusions the VP can run the turn chats.

Why I think this is constitutional:

Impeachment:
All members of our great nation are recognized the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any government official at any time.

A poll will be posted which will expire in no less than 5 days. There are to be three poll options, yea, nay, and abstain. Upon the expiration of the poll, if 2/3 of the people who voted deem impeachment necessary, then the official shall be immediately removed from office. The President shall establish an emergency member to take his/her place until a new election can be held, and a new person voted into office to finish the term. The same holds true for any possible resignations.

The end of the impeachment clause includes resignations. It just says a) if a person is impeached or resigned the president can name someone to take their place and b) thats only until a new election can be held for someone to finish the term out. In this case the president is naming the VP to take his place until the new election can be held to replace him. (which works since its also the VP's job to play for the president if he can't for some reason)

I also reccomend that a clause in our elections reform ammendment except anyone who serves less than half their term from the term limits (allowing both candidates to run again)

The ammendment process _should_ take less than a week (3 days I think is min for voting, but it might be 5 for ammendments, but we have to debate it too) The new election should take 5 days. So we could have this resolved within 10 days easily, and it only require the VP to play 1 turn chat.


----
Anyways, thats my best attempt at a fair solution that also keeps with our code of laws.

Speaking of code of laws has any ammendments passed yet? We really should put a copy of our code of laws topped on the forum (or on the presidents page) that stays edited current for any passed ammendments.

[wervdon]

Btw is directly from Trip's proposed ammendment III if it passed it would expressely forbid what he and Ninot are proposing we do

A person may run for only one office per election. Candidates may not be a judge in the court, nor may they be in the process of pursuing a position in the court while a candidate for another office. One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. Candidates for an official office may not run in teams. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other.

Sorry, I couldn't resist pointing that out Trip

Edit: Well I guess it says candidates can't "run" in teams, but one would assume if they can't run in teams you meant they can't win in teams too :P

[Robber Baron]

I was getting kind of depressed last night, fretting over our little constitutional crisis.
But this morning, I'm seeing a different side to things.
Time to count our blessings, people:
1.) We had what probably would have been (even without shennanigans) a very close election, close not because the candidates or their parties disagreed sharply over game tactics, but because most of us share a general consensus about how to proceed, on the map, to grow our civilization (at least, at this stage in the game).
2.) We have some structural/constitutional issues to work out -- like bugs we're trying to patch (and we're all familiar with that process, no? ) ... but
3.) We have leaders who care about the game, who are trying to keep it both playable and responsive to the community, who are working imaginatively and in good faith to work out a solution.
4.) We have a vibrant citizenry, talking this thing out, keeping things in line.

Congratulations, citizens. Democracy can be messy. But community spirit will see us through.

[Sheik]

How is the decision making process going to work? As long as you guys have all the issues worked out I am fine with it. I thought a long time before voting for president because it was a hard choice. And although it was a choice for one president I have no problems with two.

I think I like Timelines idea also. I would however like to see the justices nominated with both people having a say.

[civman2000]

Timelines is better than simultaneous presidency, but following the poll is even better. Unless it closes tied, which i actually doubt will happen, there is no problem. If it does then we should poll the other advisors ir do something like that but not have 2 presidents

[Papa Chubby]

Mark has just said that there is not any overt sign of any cheatig. He has stated though that the fact that only about 95 (approximation) of the 120 (approximation) who voted have submitted a post in the join thread, not the best of things. Besides this could all blow over as Ninot is over by three votes right now.

[jdjdjd]

Splitting the month is a good solution. And you could add to it this

Ninot is Trip's aid while Trip acts as president, though he can only do duties not reserved for the President or VP in the Const. And then they switch roles.

[Timeline]

LOL @ jdjdjd

Edit: Darnit man, you edited your post

[Proserpine]

Sounds like we have our very own "pregnant chad" situation.

I strongly disagree with any proposal to split the presidency, that is just as much a "stitch up" as the 2 pres. proposal.

Trip, while I appreciate that the Presidency is doubtless much work, that is partly why we have a VP, IMO. We don't need another Pres.

If the poll is completely tied, then there should be a repoll, no question.

[jdjdjd]

Originally posted by Timeline


LOL @ jdjdjd

Edit: Darnit man, you edited your post

yes, I thought I read all the posts and then saw all this other stuff...and then I was like, you knw, oh my god, and then I said well, I'm changing it because it doesn't make sense, and you know, so I did it, and then oh my god, did you like the original best, well, you know, anyway...

I thought your compromise idea is a way out of the woods.

[Aggie]

This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?

Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie

[Kuciwalker]

I like Timeline's proposal, but if we can count citizen's votes only, we should do that.

[Kramerman]

Originally posted by Aggie
This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?

Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie

If the legal votes are sorted out from the illegal ones, then the winner of the Presidential elction, by plurality vote as stated in the Constitution, must honor that election poll and become the single President of Apolytonia.

If the "legalized" poll shows a single winner, then he must follow that. If he didn't, then that would defeat the purpose of our Constitution and our Democracy. I say this is the most legal solution. Since we don't yet have a supreme court, then the newly elected ministers and VP can sort out the votes with MarkG help and the true winner be identified. If it turns out to be a real tie, then the Pres should be chosen however the Constitution says it should be done. And remember (I believe but am not sure, but it is only logical), Trip is still the President until the new one takes office so legislation can still be passed. I mean just because we are in the voting process doesn't mean we don't have a leader.

Also, many good solutions have been proposed, such as by Timeline, but the "citizenry" cannot arbitrarily chose the solution to this problem on this thread. The solution should be voted on like normal legislation by the governing body (I dunno if that includes the citizenry, I haven't been active in the game until just a few days ago)

Kman

[Schee]

We must have a single president

Having 2 presidents couldnt be efficient. (After French Révolution, there was a government called Directoire, France was governed by 5 guys and this period was even worse than before the Révolution because they were never in agreement and there was much corruption.)

[Jon Shafer]

Originally posted by Schee
We must have a single president

Having 2 presidents couldnt be efficient. (After French Révolution, there was a government called Directoire, France was governed by 5 guys and this period was even worse than before the Révolution because they were never in agreement and there was much corruption.)

The reason it didn't work was because all of the people in charge were fanatics. They couldn't have gotten into power at that time without promising the deaths of thousands. Robespierre proves that, and I don't see him in either me or Ninney.

[Schee]

Hmm... If my memory is good, they were choosen because people thought they were moderated... and it's right that Robespierre killed many people too before his head was cut.

But I don't think you're as bad as them

[Spiffor]

Trip :
Actually, Robespierre was dead already when the Directoire took over. They weren't fanatics but were cynical powerhungry people. However, things were blocked as soon as people disagreed (which can happen to the most moderate people).

[The_Hawk]

The one thing i've found in my experience with Civ, especially Civ3, is that it so mirrors life. It is almost a virtual training ground for things that we see in life. In nature, in the real world, you NEVER see 2 presidents. That has never been a good model of order, government and leadership. Therefore, i've voted for one president.

The problem here is abuse of power. I am not pointing fingers at anyone, just speaking in general. ANYONE that is voted into office—here at Apolytonia or elsewhere—must seriously be cognizant of their responsibility and duty to the people and to their position. The quest for 2 presidents sounds too much like a bad solution to someone's power struggle (don't know who's). If anything, the fact that the question was even raised might suggest that the distribution and balance of power might need to be reassessed. Just a thought...

[Sirotnikov]

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

Ding!

Correct.

They are effectively making themselves despots and risk the democracy by creating the opportunity to do this again.