A question of Vice-Presidents?

Darkness' Edge · August 5, 2002, 23:28

We've easily got enough members to support a Vice-Commissioner, who exists to take over if the Commissioner goes AWOL, and runs elections. So, how is this going to work?

Directly elected?
The runner-up for commissioner, as in Civ2? (my preferred choice)

Method · August 5, 2002, 23:31

i'd say runner up

Juliennew · August 5, 2002, 23:38

I'd also say runner-up. There are already many elections to organize.

Sprayber · August 6, 2002, 01:15

Runner up seems more appropriate.

Just a suggestion to those that don't like the runner up idea. Maybe after the president is chosen, the other candidates could then be used to choose the vice president. But only those that ran for president could be considered.

Tactical Marine · August 6, 2002, 08:23

I disagree I say a seperate election. Some people might want a postion but not the responsiblity of having to play (all the time). Or maybe just have the Military misnister take over in case the commissoner is absent..?

Crisler · August 6, 2002, 08:33

Runner-Up is the best solution. By doing the runner up know that the person is willing to do the Commisioners job if it is required. Plus by doing the runner up we can stop one party from easily gaining total control.

E.L. Crisler
Fundamentalist Faction

jdd2007 · August 6, 2002, 09:01

there is a problem i have pointed out with the runner-up system. an inferior candidate can be guaranteed a position if only one other person is running for president.

Leland · August 6, 2002, 10:30

Quote:

Originally posted by jdd2007
there is a problem i have pointed out with the runner-up system. an inferior candidate can be guaranteed a position if only one other person is running for president.

I think that because of the runner-up also gets something, there's incentive to nominate more than just two candidates, which is good. More diversity. Besides Alpha Talent doesn't have any real powers anyway.

DeathByTheSword · August 6, 2002, 15:47

runner-up!

Andemagne · August 6, 2002, 16:27

runner up is ok with me.

Anodyne · August 6, 2002, 16:37

Hmm... it seems appropriate, yes. But there are also (aforementioned) problems, which might be solved by a) council electing the VP, or b) another election with the same candidates (without the winner-candidate, of course)

DeathByTheSword · August 6, 2002, 16:38

I choose door number B (what did I win?

)

Method · August 6, 2002, 16:45

hmm. i like the "b" option.

Darkness' Edge · August 7, 2002, 00:03

that would be fine with me, but it may add unnecessary time to the election process...

Maniac · August 7, 2002, 06:59

Will we allow accumulation of the Alpha Talentship with a directorate, at least in this early phase where there aren't that many volunteers for director-positions?

Darkness' Edge · August 7, 2002, 07:22

Quote:

Originally posted by M@ni@c
Will we allow accumulation of the Alpha Talentship with a directorate, at least in this early phase where there aren't that many volunteers for director-positions?

i don't get what you mean
but i don't like the sound of it

Maniac · August 7, 2002, 07:39

From Darkness' Edge post in the P4 thread I get the impression I have a different definition of runner-up than you do. Could someone please elaborate the options then? I would just suggest that every Commissioner candidate also chooses his Alpha Talent candidate. If a Commissioner candidate is elected, his side-kick Alpha Talent is automatically elected as well. This will ensure that both functions are in the same party to ensure there isn't a sudden change in policy when the Commissioner is temporarily unavailable. As the function of Alpha Talent doesn't have any power unless the Commissioner is unavailable, there isn't any danger that too much power would be given to one party. This idea also prevents another election round has to be held after the official Commissioner elections, which creates needless bureaucracy and a waste of time that could be spend polling, discussing and playing.

Leland · August 7, 2002, 08:07

I am against Commissioner choosing his own Alpha Talent, and I am against having a separate poll. I think that the runner-up, i.e. the guy who gets second most votes in the election, gets to be the Alpha Talent. This assures that

a) The dominant coalition can't get all the positions of the cabinet. It is very likely that if a coalition has enough support to elect a commissioner, they are also able to win every position in the directorate elections. At least the Alpha Talent would represent an alternative, if he is the runner-up.

b) There won't be boring 1-on-1 battles when electing a commissioner. It's much more interesting in my opinion when you can't just select one guy for your coalition, but have to in fact consider whether to nominate two in hopes of getting both the Commissioner's and Alpha Talent's posts.

c) The political parties don't degenerate into a two-party system so easily.

d) Commissioner shouldn't have any real power anyway... he is more like a moderator and the guy who carries out what directors say rather than someone who has great influence in the policy. Nobody likes a dictator.

Maniac · August 7, 2002, 08:20

Ok then: Leland's proposal.

Method · August 7, 2002, 10:43

leland makes some valid points. a poll?

Maniac · August 7, 2002, 13:53

I have another proposal concerning Alpha Talent. If there aren't any candidates for a certain directorate, or if Banana gets elected as Director, may I propose that the Alpha Talent takes on that job? That gives the job some use.