Discussion: 2 Presidents. Prior to an Official Poll - Page 2

notyoueither · July 16, 2002, 19:23

Actually, I am wondering whether we should put the nation through the process of official polls on these topics. If there is general agreement that we shouldn't, then the process is probably stopped at that point.

kring · July 16, 2002, 19:33

One way to handle future amendment would be that you need to be a citizen by date X before the election, the way it is in many countries.

On the aide issue, wasn't that what the VP job is supposed to be about?

EDIT: hit the wrong button.

In the early USA history, the 2 people with the most votes became President and VP. That was a sound deal, except how ties were handled. If we modified it so that ties were decided in some nonpartisan way, I would support such a motion.

I guess this is what I get for not reading the election polls.

I will add in more later.

Moral Hazard · July 16, 2002, 19:37

An official poll would set a better precedent. But wouldn't object to there not being one. Considering the issue will obviously be in Ammendment 3, but who knows when that will pass.

kring · July 16, 2002, 19:45

Probably fairly quick after this election.

The Constitution is exceedingly vague on elections.

Kuciwalker · July 16, 2002, 19:56

RECOUNT!!!

Sorry, I couldn't resist

Kloreep · July 16, 2002, 23:48

I think we should do a recount to nullify non-citizen votes.

notyoueither · July 17, 2002, 00:07

Well. The situation seems to have changed.

I can see no productive purpose to counting votes at this point. The incumbent has conceded to make an orderly and lawful transition possible. Trip is owed a good debt by all of us. I will not forget Ninot's willingness to form a government of unity either.

Now we know 2 things. 1, DLs were not involved in the vote. 2, we have a legitimate president.

The only question remaining would be if we wish to see a list of the voters (without their votes). I believe this may be helpful, so that we may determine from where so many non citizen votes came. What say you?

/Edit. 24 and a few hours left for discussion.

MrWhereItsAt · July 17, 2002, 02:18

A nice idea, nye

And as far as the thread is concerned - for the future, there should be NO QUESTION of any but one president. The judiciary, when enacted, will see to that.

Where is the amendment for allowing the Prez/ Foreign Minister etc to appoint Ambassadord, helpers etc? That would have been an alternative. If our situation had continued, the winner of the election would have been the Prez, and the runner-up could have been appointed a Presidential aide- one with no actual power, but who the Prez could instruct to do various things he couldn't in the time available, eg put up certain polls, respond with the Prez's thoughts on an issue, update the website; kinda like a PA/Secretary.

This is kinda how I saw the dual Presidency working anyway, but with somehow sharing of gameplay duties.

Captain · July 17, 2002, 13:42

NYE, yes, let's see the voters list of voter names, but not their votes.

But it doesn't really matter. I guess we owe Trip and Ninot a great debt as they resolved this in a timely and pleasant fashion in accordance to the people's will. I hope they are not too put out by all of this.

Robber Baron · July 17, 2002, 15:38

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
the winner of the election would have been the Prez, and the runner-up could have been appointed a Presidential aide- one with no actual power, but who the Prez could instruct to do various things he couldn't in the time available, eg put up certain polls, respond with the Prez's thoughts on an issue, update the website; kinda like a PA/Secretary.

This is kinda how I saw the dual Presidency working anyway, but with somehow sharing of gameplay duties.

Yeah, like a Chief of Staff (a very important position in the U.S., which is not elected, of course, and not constitutionally defined).

(Don't know why I'm still mulling this issue over, though, since we're moving on.)