Amendment idea regarding single-candidate elections

Trevman · August 17, 2002, 15:02

As we have had several elections this term with only one candidate, and that they got quite a few abstain votes, it occurred to may that there should be an amendment disqualifying a sole candidate for office if he got an excessive amount of abstain votes. It doesn't seem fair that the poeple of Apolytonia should be denied a choice in the elections. Under the current system, candidates can be forced upon us if they are the only one to run.

So in short, an amendment could states that if there isa certain amount of abstain votes, one half or a third or whatever, in a single-candidate election, or maybe even any election, then the election will be invalid. The only problem with this is finding other candidates.

Sheik · August 17, 2002, 15:06

If the abstain votes win then we need a new canidate.

MrWhereItsAt · August 17, 2002, 15:37

I always thought the abstain in single option elections should be (and was considered as) a vote of no-confidence.

DAVOUT · August 17, 2002, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Trevman
It doesn't seem fair that the poeple of Apolytonia should be denied a choice in the elections. Under the current system, candidates can be forced upon us if they are the only one to run.

The people is not denied a choice, but the people has not found in his ranks enough candidates ; he is responsible for that. The consequence of cancelling the vote would be that the previous minister would stay in his post, which is another way to force a minister upon the people. The power cannot be left vacant.

Togas · August 17, 2002, 17:58

And if we did disqualify a solo candidate, then who would do the job?

No one else wants the job. If someone did, he would have run for office.

If the people dislike a candidate that much, then one of the people needs to stand up, do his civic duty, and run against him. It's the only fair way to do it.

--Togas

Spiffor · August 17, 2002, 19:53

Quote:

Togas is right

Epistax · August 17, 2002, 20:20

Togas IS right, but there is always the possibility that someone misses the election thread, because they are late.

Let's just allow write-ins

Anyway, I don't think we'll have this problem. Being an jerk or an idiot aren't offenses, Not being popular certainly isn't an offense either. Being an idiot and AND being a jerk at the same time (make bad calls, don't listen to suggestions), we'll see what we can do.

SABRA · August 18, 2002, 11:15

We should re-poll until we have a final outcome .

Trevman · August 18, 2002, 22:36

I think Togas is right also. That's the problem with such an amendment. I was hoping someone would come up with a clever solution but there doesn't seem to be one. The only thing I can think of is that the position would be appointed but I don't like that idea.

MrWhereItsAt · August 19, 2002, 07:05

Unless there is a total whitewash of Banana votes in ane election, at the very least SOME people want that candidate in. This would be preferable to any appointment, where it is possible even fewer people approve.

GodKing · August 19, 2002, 12:32

Togas is right (yet again!!!!

)

O course if it ever came down to it, we can always impeach the bas%#$&.

Sheik · August 19, 2002, 13:26

Perhaps if we disqualified a candidate then someone else would run because they either at first thought they would lose or they feel that they should step up and fill the spot.

Panag · August 21, 2002, 07:22

hi ,

there should always be at least two candidates , ...

have a nice day

Darkness' Edge · August 21, 2002, 08:13

I support the banana vote being a vote of no confidence.

In the event that that did happen, which is very unlikely, surely another candidate could be found.