 |
View Poll Results: Do you accept the new way of counting active citizens
|
 |
Yes, signups every month
|
  
|
8 |
20.51% |
Yes, signups every other month
|
  
|
6 |
15.38% |
Yes, but signups every [insert your idea here]
|
  
|
1 |
2.56% |
No, keep the current system
|
  
|
13 |
33.33% |
No, I propose a different system not described here
|
  
|
2 |
5.13% |
Abstain/Banana/Other/BoogaWoogaWooga
|
  
|
9 |
23.08% |
|
July 25, 2002, 12:04
|
#1
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
Do you accept this new method of Censuses? ---OFFICIAL---
The Question: would you agree to having sign-ups that replace current censuses and the lifetime signups, described in this thread
Options:
Yes, signups every month
Yes, signups every other month
Yes, signups every [insert your idea here]
No, keep the current system
No, I propose a different system
Abstain/Banana/Other
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 12:13
|
#2
|
Emperor
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: As cuddly as a cactus, as charming as an eel.
Posts: 8,196
|
Bleh, do what you will, I will likely abstain from any census lest they make it manditory to vote. And then, with my present problems in that area, I may as well abstain from those as well.
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 13:27
|
#3
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
it would not be very often, OnOrthO...it is not a census, really, but a signup for the next one or two terms...
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 14:46
|
#4
|
Emperor
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Detroit
Posts: 4,551
|
I assume that the single option with the most votes wins.
__________________
Try peace first. If that does not work, then killing them is often a good solution. :evil:
As long as I could figure a way to hump myself, I would be OK with that
--Con
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 15:24
|
#5
|
Prince
Local Time: 04:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bavaria (Fanatika)
Posts: 374
|
I abstained just to view the result ;-)
my 2c:
you should combine election restrictions with the re-signup. only persons who re-signed up until 1 week before the elections will be able to vote in them.
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 15:27
|
#6
|
Emperor
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of the Martian Empire
Posts: 4,969
|
No. It's not clear exactly how significant the results of the signups will be, but since there is a chance that people who don't sign up monthly will not be considered citizens, I vote no.
__________________
Ham grass chocolate.
"This should be the question they ask you before you get to vote. If you answer 'no', then they brand you with a giant red 'I' on your forehead and you are forever barred from taking part in the electoral process again."--KrazyHorse
"I'm so very glad KH is Canadian."--Donegeal
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 15:46
|
#7
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up. it would be flexible.
Note: this is not an amendment
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 15:48
|
#8
|
Emperor
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of the Martian Empire
Posts: 4,969
|
Quote:
|
we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up
|
This violates clause 2 of the bill of rights, which will be added to the constitution when the poll closes tomorrow. This cannot be done without having it be an amendment
__________________
Ham grass chocolate.
"This should be the question they ask you before you get to vote. If you answer 'no', then they brand you with a giant red 'I' on your forehead and you are forever barred from taking part in the electoral process again."--KrazyHorse
"I'm so very glad KH is Canadian."--Donegeal
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 17:25
|
#9
|
Deity
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2001
Posts: 21,822
|
*sigh*
manually add +1 to option 1
__________________
[Obama] is either a troll or has no ****ing clue how government works - GePap
Later amendments to the Constitution don't supersede earlier amendments - GePap
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 22:25
|
#10
|
Prince
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Posts: 812
|
I voted against it. I dislike any system which will present us with persistant manditory "domestic nag" to stay involved. One sign up is plenty to vote. Being reasonably active is enough to run for an office. Besides, as it was pointed out this would violate the bill of rights, and even if it didn't, it'd need to be an ammendment to alter the voting requirements in my opinion at least.
To sum up, Id rather not have to remember repetitive redundant sign up processes, and my guess is at least a few people would end up getting excluded by it because of their sporadic real life schedules or their own forgettfulness.
|
|
|
|
July 25, 2002, 22:38
|
#11
|
Firaxis Games Programmer/Designer
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Maryland
Posts: 9,567
|
Markos is already establishing a system for us to be securly logged in as members, which will go for polls especially.
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 03:08
|
#12
|
Deity
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
|
I'm sorry I missed your original thread jdd. Too much going on...
An alternative to the permanent list may be a good idea, however drawing the line at one month might not be the best proposal.
If the list gets tied to the ability to vote in the Demo forum, then it is critically important that this procedure be done 'properly'. Maybe we should wait to see what Markos can do before we change anything else.
What we would need is a 'yes, it's done based on the first post in Gramphos' thread' or a 'no it can't be done'. Then we can proceed knowing the stakes involved.
BTW. Has anybody seen Gramphos lately? Not a big deal I suppose. The court could always ask Ming or Mark by PM to edit the 'important list' immediately prior to an election. One of them is always around.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 04:14
|
#13
|
Deity
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: That's DR WhereItsAt...
Posts: 10,157
|
Abstain as an attempt to further convince all that some of us are sick of polls on how to choose those who can poll (or whatever  ).
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 08:19
|
#14
|
Emperor
Local Time: 22:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: of the Martian Empire
Posts: 4,969
|
I'm going to take this to court as soon as i can...
__________________
Ham grass chocolate.
"This should be the question they ask you before you get to vote. If you answer 'no', then they brand you with a giant red 'I' on your forehead and you are forever barred from taking part in the electoral process again."--KrazyHorse
"I'm so very glad KH is Canadian."--Donegeal
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 09:24
|
#15
|
King
Local Time: 23:57
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Sunshine State, USA
Posts: 1,104
|
Abstain
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 09:31
|
#16
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by wervdon
I voted against it. I dislike any system which will present us with persistant manditory "domestic nag" to stay involved. One sign up is plenty to vote. Being reasonably active is enough to run for an office. Besides, as it was pointed out this would violate the bill of rights, and even if it didn't, it'd need to be an ammendment to alter the voting requirements in my opinion at least.
To sum up, Id rather not have to remember repetitive redundant sign up processes, and my guess is at least a few people would end up getting excluded by it because of their sporadic real life schedules or their own forgettfulness.
|
a month may be too short, but surely you have three seconds every sixty days ...
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 09:40
|
#17
|
Deity
Local Time: 16:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2001
Location: That's DR WhereItsAt...
Posts: 10,157
|
Quote:
|
Originally posted by jdd2007
a month may be too short, but surely you have three seconds every sixty days ...
|
jdd - a lot of us are very lazy; that is the very reason I am on the 'Net instead of doing work.
You can fight apathy, but why bother?
EDIT: Having read this and related threads thoroughly, I agree with civman's thoughts that the amendment attached to this could disallow people from voting, even though they actually COULD vote. In this way not only is it not fair on some who want to participate but don't have the presenc of mind to seek help on how to do so, but it is essentially pointless. If we have no means of enforcing such an idea, what is it there for? At least the census we have at the moment is non-binding, and more for information purposes.
Last edited by MrWhereItsAt; July 26, 2002 at 09:54.
|
|
|
|
July 26, 2002, 12:07
|
#18
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
first of all it isnt an ammendment and secondly, it could not bar people from voting, in any circumstance. we could make it so, but currently it says nothing about the subject
|
|
|
|
July 27, 2002, 03:12
|
#19
|
Prince
Local Time: 04:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bavaria (Fanatika)
Posts: 374
|
at the moment its 14-11 against the censuses like they are held now. i wonder why the other poll seems to come out in favor of the censuses.
now what should i do?
|
|
|
|
July 27, 2002, 03:13
|
#20
|
Prince
Local Time: 04:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bavaria (Fanatika)
Posts: 374
|
i would like to see a statement of the president in here on this matter!
|
|
|
|
July 27, 2002, 03:16
|
#21
|
Prince
Local Time: 04:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Bavaria (Fanatika)
Posts: 374
|
|
|
|
|
September 15, 2002, 19:02
|
#22
|
King
Local Time: 00:57
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Cincinnati
Posts: 2,015
|
hehe, found this too. its actually a tie between YES and NO, with 9 bananas, so i guess my proposal lost.
|
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is On
|
|
|
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 00:57.
|
|