Proposed amendment - alteration to Article V

[J Bytheway]

After observing our first elections and the ongoing impeachment of Gilgamensch I read the Constitution article on government changes and realised that it leaves much open to interpretaion or other problems. I am proposing the following alternative for discussion in the hope that I can begin an amendment poll soon (though it should probably wait until the current spate of elections is over to prevent complications).

This is intended to cover possibilities not previously considered, clear up ambiguous phrasing and speed replacement of impeached officials to allow the game to proceed more easily.

I tried to highlight changes in bold, but this was done in retrospect, so I cannot guarantee I found all of them.



Article V: Government Changes

1. Elections

(a) The Court is empowered to oversee all elections and is empowered to resolve any election disputes according to the rules in this Constitution.
(b) An officer can leave his office in three ways:
* The term of the office ends.
* The officer is impeached.
* The officer resigns.
(c) An election process must be initiated by the court eight days before the end of any government position term. The previous officer will remain in office until the end of the term or until a new candidate is elected, whichever is the later.
(d) If an officer resigns or is impeached, the timing of the election process and allocation of duties is as described in Section 2.
(e) At the start of the election process, the Court must start a nomination thread. All citizens who wish to be candidates for an office must publicly express their nomination in this thread. For this they have three days.
(f) No citizen may be a candidate for an elected office if such candidacy might cause this citizen to be in more than one elected office simultaneously.
(g) If no candidate is nominated the Court shall extend the nominations for a further three days. This extension can be repeated indefinately.
(h) Once the time in which citizens may express their candidacy for a given elected office has expired, the Court will create an Election poll (see Article II, Subsection 3-I) for the office, with the names of the candidates as options. The poll shall expire in five days.
(i) If only one candidate is available for an office, a Yes/No poll shall be held to decide if this person may serve in this office. This poll shall expire in five days.
(j) If the single candidate is rejected by a majority of voters then the Court shall reopen nominations for that office.
(k) The candidate who received the majority of the votes and the election thread expires, this person will be declared the new holder of the office for which he was a candidate.
(l) In case of a tie in the election poll, the other newly elected members of the same branch of government position in question whose election polls were not tied will vote again to decide which one of the tied candidates will take over this position. If all polls for executive branch positions are simultaneously tied then the Court (including the newly elected member, if there is one) shall select the President, and the President shall select the other ministers from the tied candidates in their respective election polls.

2. Impeachment

(a) Any Citizen may bring the case of impeachment of an elected Minister, President, or Judge to a member of the Court.
(b) The Court shall review the allegations made, allow an answer by the accused, and by a vote determine if there are proper and legal grounds to hold a Resolution poll to decide on impeachment. If the accusations are found to be without legal merit, the allegations shall be dismissed.
(c) Should a member of the Court be the subject of impeachment, he shall not take part in the decision by The Court. The President shall sit in this Court member place for the sole determination of whether the impeachment has merit, and shall be considered a “Judge” for that vote only.
(d) If the Court decides there are grounds for impeachment, it shall start a poll in which it clearly states the person to be impeached and outlines the events that led to the request for impeachment. If the impeachment is confirmed by a majority of the voters in the poll, the officer in question shall be removed from the office, losing all rights and responsibilities thereof.
(e) Elections for a replacement shall be started only if they could conclude at least one week before the end of the term for the office. If elections are not started a temporary replacement can be chosen as described in paragraph (h).
(f) The Court may open nominations for a replacement for the impeached official at any time while the impeachment poll is open if it considers that the impeachment is likely to occur. In this case, the nomination thread must clearly state that the election is conditional on the impeachment of the official.
(g) If the impeachment poll closes and the officer is impeached and nominations have not yet begun, then the Court must start them as soon as possible.
(h) The other members of the branch from which an officer is impeached may choose a willing citizen to fill that office until a replacement is elected. The chosen citizen will have the word temporary as a prefix to the name of their office.

3. Resignations

(a) Any officer may announce his desire to resign at any time.
(b) Elections for a replacement shall be started be the court upon this announcement only if they could conclude at least one week before the end of the term for the office.
(c) The officer who wishes to resign shall be requested to remain in office until a replacement is elected.
(d) If the officer is unwilling to remain in office, then the other members of the branch from which the officer resigns may choose a willing citizen to fill that office until a replacement is elected. The chosen citizen will have the word temporary as a prefix to the name of their office.

[mapfi]

I don't like 2(f) - no need to rush there
and as for 2(h) and 3(d) - I'd like to leave that power to the court (I know it's actually contradicting in the current con) - like in the section 2 of the current con

[H Tower]

could you bold the parts you changed? i don't want to have to go through word for word on the entire article. And every word has meaning as we have found.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by mapfi
I don't like 2(f) - no need to rush there

I just think it would speed things up, and it's totally optional - it wouldn't be done in a disputed case. I'm not too sure about it either, though - I'd like to hear other opinions.

and as for 2(h) and 3(d) - I'd like to leave that power to the court (I know it's actually contradicting in the current con) - like in the section 2 of the current con

Hmm... I agree the court would be a more reliable source of opinion - perhaps it would be a good idea to poll on this issue.

Originally posted by H Tower
could you bold the parts you changed? i don't want to have to go through word for word on the entire article. And every word has meaning as we have found.

I would have bolded the parts I changed, but I did change a significant fraction of it, and now I probably couldn't find the changed parts very easily . I'll try, anyway.

[J Bytheway]

Originally posted by J Bytheway

Quote:

and as for 2(h) and 3(d) - I'd like to leave that power to the court (I know it's actually contradicting in the current con) - like in the section 2 of the current con

Hmm... I agree the court would be a more reliable source of opinion - perhaps it would be a good idea to poll on this issue.

I have done so at http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=74117

[J Bytheway]

Emboldening added.

Another point - do you think we should specify a particular way in which to resign, such as making a thread for the purpose - at the moment someone could just post in the Cafe or somesuch place...

[Locutus]

I like what I see, although for the most part chances with the old version are hard to spot. The power to appoint temporary ministers and the like should IMHO lie with the Court...

While we're amending, I was thinking: maybe we should allow people to be a candidate for more than one office (the number of offices that one can actually hold should remain one though). If someone runs for several offices and wins in more than one, they will have to choose an office and give the other one to the runner-up. That might make the elections more interesting: as it is, most positions have only 1 candidate

What do others think? Thoughts, criticism, complications...

[Locutus]

Since resignation requires the Court to take action, the 'File Cases' thread seems suitable. Don't think this has to be set in the Constitution though, IMO the Court may make its own rules on this...

[Frozzy]

Locutus, yes, allow them to be candidate, and then they may choose what to be if they win both.

I like it.

[mapfi]

No, don't like it all and here's why:

There's a good reason for not allowing candidacy for more than one office. Only clear elections will show the true will of the people.
If e.g. Locutus ran for Diplominister and MoD in the current election. He wins and decides to take on the Diplooffice. Now all people who voted for Loc in the MoD election have been deprived of choosing between Turambar and Maquiladora. That's totally undemocratic!

[H Tower]

i agree with mapfi, multiple candidacys just mess everything up in a case like this

[J Bytheway]

Any other views on 2(f)?

[Locutus]

Hmmm, I guess mapfi has a point. But does anyone else have any ideas on making the election more interesting. 4 people getting an office without having to work for it is not what I had in mind when we started (which is why I always advocated 1 less minister)...

John,
2(f) looks good to me...

[mapfi]

i'm fine with 2(f) - it just shouldn't be used...