Retry: Amendment III

Jon Shafer · July 13, 2002, 22:42

This amendment is an attempt to rectify the potential loopholes of governmental elections, and to lay out basic rules.

Each election takes place from the 12th of the month until the 16th. A Pre-Election thread must be created by the current President or Vice-President at least a week before the elections are set to take place. All elections must last 5 days, until the 16th. All candidates must announce their candidacy before the elections begin in that thread, or else he will be excluded from the ballot. Once the 5 days has passed, then the new or reelected officials will be admitted to their offices.

The elections must be conducted by either the current President, or the current Vice-President. If they are unavailable at the time of the election, then someone may be selected by a majority vote among the officials to conduct the elections.

The winner of the election is determined by the number of votes they recieve: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie in an election with more than two candidates, there will be an additional vote on the two tied candidates. In a two man election, if there is a tie between the two candidates, then a vote will be conducted amongst the newly elected officials to decide who will recieve the office.

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.

The position of 'Historian' is hereby made an unofficial office. The only official rule it must abide by is a fair and legal election, in accordance to all rules in place for this process.

Any suggestions?

I'm going to put it up for a vote once there are no more complaints (why do you think I didn't have the court amendment first

). Anyone who feels me putting it up before 3 weeks has passed is invalid = uber lame.

(Yes Linney, I'm talking to you

)

Spiffor · July 13, 2002, 22:49

Again, I think it's a good text, because it will deal well with many organizational problems, and will have minimal political impact.

We all know letting ministers decide who wins is not the best way. But I'm curious if anyone has a better idea to decide in a draw between 2 candidates.

If I might suggest an amendment, I'd say "the vote will be conducted among the newly elected ministers etc."
Edit : my reasons for this amendment are :
1. it's currently confusing, and we have to decide if old ministers do this, new ones, or both
2. I feel the new staff will be more representative of the people at the time of election

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 00:45

Alright, everything has been edited and tweaked to allow for more clarity. I.e., changing from a vote amongst "Ministers" to a vote amongst "Officials" (thereby including the President/VP while excluding the Historian).

Moral Hazard · July 14, 2002, 01:02

The elections must be conducted by either the current President, or the current Vice-President. If they are unavailable at the time of the election, then someone may be selected by a majority vote among the officials to conduct the elections.

This should be handled by either the current vice-president or by a justice of the court. Not the president; considering that his responsibilities are already numerous.

About the historian it is also his official duty to do some work.

Sorry to complain at this late date. Been out of the loop for a while with computer problems and vacation.

Moral Hazard · July 14, 2002, 01:03

Spiffor:
We all know letting ministers decide who wins is not the best way. But I'm curious if anyone has a better idea to decide in a draw between 2 candidates.

The court?

Inverse Icarus · July 14, 2002, 01:18

I oppose this line:

One may only hold a particular office twice in a row

Inverse Icarus · July 14, 2002, 03:01

We took a poll ad the option that won was unlimited terms, so long as they have public support (IIRC). grouping this with other favorable options in one amendment is an obvious attempt to trick the people into voting it into the constitution.

notyoueither · July 14, 2002, 03:44

Uber. Where is the unlimited terms for ministers?

IIRC that was the decision of the judges poll. Was a similar verdict rendered for the ministers?

MrWhereItsAt · July 14, 2002, 08:29

Here it is - not hard to find, but with a clear winner for Unlimited terms, provided the people vote you in again and again.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...threadid=52397

Amendment is GOOD!

The court should not have the power to decide in the case of a tied election - that is almost getting political (which NOBODY wants).

And am I the only one that finds this phrase unintentionally amusing;

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
The position of 'Historian' is hereby made an unofficial office.

Unofficial, yet still an official?

Comedy GOLD!

civman2000 · July 14, 2002, 09:32

Quote:

A person may run for only one office per election

This should be removed. Otehrwise though, it's good

Jonny · July 14, 2002, 10:29

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
We took a poll ad the option that won was unlimited terms

The constitution says you can hold the same office only 3 terms in a row, not unlimited.

Spiffor · July 14, 2002, 10:32

Moral Hazard : I also think the court shouldn't be able to decide who wins. This is a political matter, and thereby not the place of the court. Such a responsibility should go to politicians, because they have the duty to meet decisions, even if they can be mistakes.

MWIA : actually, putting the historian as an unofficial post makes the historian unable to vote to decide who wins.

UberKrux : although I'm in favour of unlimited terms, we have to abide with the poll. It was a grouping poll, and a majority wanted limitations to some extent (the majority within this majority wanted 2 terms in a row).
Trip doesn't always have a perfect behaviour when he writes amendments, but this time, he has done this work very democratically.

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 11:23

Civman -

That part is good. It prevents major problems, like if someone wins two elections. A person should only be allowed to run for one office.

Puupertti Ruma · July 14, 2002, 12:38

I also think that Court shouldn't decide who wins in a case of a tie. Actually I think that Trip's suggestion is best.

If election results in a tie, it means that the people can't "decide", or they are indifferent which one is chosen. Officials then take a vote (those officials that people has just chosen) and winner is elected.

Don't you think is democratic enough? This way the people have the saying on the matters to the farthest extent. And the probability of a tie with casted votes from about 150 voters is very low. If percent's rule whether election is a tie or not, then there are of course bigger possibilities of a tie.

But if something unpredicted has happened, then, IMO court should decide how the minister is chosen. They shouldn't choose the minister, they should just decide how he is elected.

I'd vote for this amendment in it's current form. It's as perfect as it can get yes. Now let's share a dope

Aggie · July 14, 2002, 13:27

Good amendment trip andit has my whole hearted support

aggie

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 13:56

The court should be able to change the amendments without the people, except for very major things.

Inverse Icarus · July 14, 2002, 14:01

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
UberKrux : although I'm in favour of unlimited terms, we have to abide with the poll. It was a grouping poll, and a majority wanted limitations to some extent (the majority within this majority wanted 2 terms in a row).
Trip doesn't always have a perfect behaviour when he writes amendments, but this time, he has done this work very democratically.

i love how people can use logic on me but ignore it when i use the same logic (tassadar getting the wheel a while back)

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 14:20

Spiffor is not the same person as tass

Inverse Icarus · July 14, 2002, 14:29

Quote:

Originally posted by skywalker
Spiffor is not the same person as tass

im stating that the same logic is oly used when the DIA wants to use it.

im going to get some breakfast/lunch before the turnchat, so see everyone there.

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 14:32

When's the turnchat?

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 14:33

1 and a half hours from now. Same time as always.

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 14:50

Well, I've missed a lot.

civman2000 · July 14, 2002, 16:18

Running for multiple postions was allowed in the civ2 game and there were no problems. I doubt that it would happen very often anyways. If someone wins 2 they just drop one and let the runner up have it. I think we should limit it to at most 2 positions at a time though

Kuciwalker · July 14, 2002, 16:37

No, let's not create any potential confusion.

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 17:35

Quote:

Originally posted by civman2000
Running for multiple postions was allowed in the civ2 game and there were no problems. I doubt that it would happen very often anyways. If someone wins 2 they just drop one and let the runner up have it. I think we should limit it to at most 2 positions at a time though

But CM, why should it be allowed? Wouldn't everyone want to run for multiple positions? And another thing you could potentially do is have 2 elections. You win both. 1 of them, a DIA candidate is runner up. The other, a UFC one is. Essentially, you can pick who wins. Not very fair, IMHO.

Inverse Icarus · July 14, 2002, 18:23

i'm still mortally opposing the 2 term limit.

Kloreep · July 14, 2002, 22:54

I'm still thinking over the two-in-row term limit...

The only reason I can think of for it is to force the people to bring in new blood occassionally. But do we really want to force a popular official out of their chosen office for a term so frequently?

Perhaps it should be three or four terms in a row. However, I think there should be a limit to how many terms in a row someone can hold an office to make sure other candidates have a chance to prove themselves.

Spiffor · July 14, 2002, 23:23

Kloreep, UberKrux :
The only way to avoid term limits would be to post a new poll about this. However, the previous poll must be at least 3 weeks old so that the repoll is valid.
For the same reason, this here amendment won't be polled in next 3 weeks, because itwould be an unconstitutional repoll.

Captain · July 14, 2002, 23:33

But, if we introduce and pass a new amendment that cuts the repoll time to 2 weeks or less and make it retroactive...

However, this is just sort of a legal loophole and isn't in the spirit of the law. Plus, I approve of the 2 consecutive term limit. You can always run for some other office Uber in the interim, maybe you'd like being President... or FAM for a month

Jon Shafer · July 14, 2002, 23:35

I think we can all agree this amendment not passing before election time may lead to a very interesting situation.

Either way, I still think the sooner we can get these kinds of things on the books the better. There's only a problem if someone complains. And why would they? The amendment is simply fixing things that were wrong, not trying to overrule a previous decision.