OFFICIAL POLL: Domestic Minister Issue

Sheik · November 18, 2002, 16:09

Please read the following motion and then vote either yes, no, or abstain. The Court has decided that this would be the best course of action to resolve the tied election issue.

********************

This Motion is to grant the power of The Court the right to view the voters list and who they voted for in this election only:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...98#post1457998

The Court, and only The Court, has the right to view the results of this election and the information will be kept private by The Court.

********************

This poll will last for 3 days.

UnOrthOdOx · November 18, 2002, 17:27

May I ask what purpose the list of voters would do?

First, one may say, "well, if someone voted who is not a member of the demo game, it can be removed"

If that is the case, what member list are we using to assertain who is a member and who is not? Is it the old one (with well over 300 members)? is it the civgroup list (currently 77 members)? A combination of the two? For that matter, where does it say that non citizens cannot vote in elections (I only see laws, motions, and amendments mentioned...oversight?)?

GhengisFarb™ · November 18, 2002, 17:34

UnOrthOdOx raises some good points that should probably be addressed. I know that in the currency vote many ages ago I recruited everyone I could to vote the passage down but as this was a Elective Position I purposely didn't mention it to anyone outside of the DemoGame people in order to maintain a fair election.

But that doesn't mean non-citizens shouldn't vote. I could see that going either way with my personal views leaning towards not allowing non-citizens to vote.

Citizens signed up in the original list but not the Civ-Groups list should be allowed to vote though as not everyone has caught on to the CivGroups thing.

Still, there is no guarantee that ANY non-citizens voted as the total vote was around 70% of the civ-groups membership.

jdjdjd · November 18, 2002, 17:37

Did I miss the run off election, that should have occurred from the 15-18th?

This is the quote from the Constitution:

Quote:

6 If no candidate for office receives more than 50% of the vote, there shall be a run-off election held from the 15th to the 18th.
(a) The Court shall create a run-off poll with the two candidates who received the most votes.
7 Ties shall be resolved by the Court in any manner of their choosing.

If I did miss it, then I don't think this poll is necessary given the extensive amount of flexibility given to the Court. The Court, based on number 7 in the quote above, has the right to resolve this in any manner, I assume that would include looking at voter records.

This is a three day poll. Then you may need several days to get what you need, review it, and decide what to do next. Next thing you know its a week down the road, and the term is 1/4 over. Just thinking about time issues, you may want to just do what you need to do and skip this poll.

UnOrthOdOx · November 18, 2002, 17:42

Im too lazy to quote, but in a different section, it states the court can only look at the results of an election with a majority of the Senate's aproval, so they can't skip this poll. They COULD just vote amongst themselves and resolve the issue that way, however, so we can get on with life...

I fail to see how they can really use the member list in this, however, since the NewCon does not forbid non members from voting in an election, just in laws, motions, amendments, etc...

don't get me wrong, I see why they want to do it this way, but there is a bit of a loophole there, along with some time issues (getting this poll done, requesting the results, comparing it to the list(s), making a decision).

And I agree with jdjdjd about the runoff, though perhaps the fact only two candidates ran overrules that part???

jdjdjd · November 18, 2002, 17:45

I've gotta type faster, or something....
Un & GF are correct, in that this list may not even help you. Actually probably not even help you.

I suggest the run off if not already done.

Or that ET and GF agree in this way one steps down, the other appoints him his Vice Minister. The one who steps down gets full support of the other for next term and agrees not to run against him for that term. If you would like to discuss ET & GF, we could work out some kind of agreement/contract.

Else, something like shiek picks a number from 1 to 100 and tells the other judges, then GF and ET pick a number in private, whoever is closer wins. Keep doing it until you get a winner. I'm serious...

UnOrthOdOx · November 18, 2002, 17:48

RockPaperScissors...worked in the PTW game...

GhengisFarb™ · November 18, 2002, 17:56

1) I already said I was stepping down.

2) It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a "run off" if there were only two options in the first place. A run off is an election between the top choices having dropped the least popular choices. There are no choices to drop so there cannot be a run-off, simply a repoll. That is why there wasn't a run-off there couldn't have been one.

adaMada · November 18, 2002, 17:58

*NOTE: All of this is my personal opinion. As the ConCon has completed it's work, it is effectively (as far as I know) dissolved, and (as such) my statements are worth no more than any other citizens, except perhaps in regard to any insight into the intentions of the writers of NewCon *

Under the New CoL, any citizen may vote. Personally, I'd define a citizen as anyone who registered in either location, since citizenship cannot be removed from someone once they already have it. In the future, I'd be happy to consider vote for a one line amendment making the old signup thread obsolete, but I think it's too soon to do that.

I believe that, under NewCon, only citizens may vote in elections. That was def. my intent, and I don't believe the other authors intended to specifically include elections from the list of things requiring citizenship. I'd have to review the exact language of certain segments before putting together a case that I could take to the court, but if nothing else, Article 3 Section 5(a) would support that, as Section 5a would be subject to the guidelines of Section 5 in places where it does not specifically declare otherwise.

Furthermore, I urge everyone to grant the court the right I maintain that the court cannot take any action until it can state that the election is completely valid, and that there is a tied number of valid votes. If this does not resolve the dispute, then the court should obviously take other action, but in the meanwhile it is imperative that the court take the first logical step towards resolving this dispute -- ensuring that there [i]is[/] a legal dispute. The court has my full support in this regard.

-- adaMada

civman2000 · November 18, 2002, 18:02

A runoff would be pointless with only two candidates

adaMada · November 18, 2002, 18:14

The runoff debate is tricky.

I don't believe that the ConCon specifically discussed if Runoffs should apply to two person elections. Having said that, under the current wording, it could. Section six, taken literally, means that we need to have a runoff. Section seven, taken literally, means that the court may decide. As it is up to the court to resolve a conflict within the CoL, the court decides either way

.

The main reasoning for a runoff between two canidates would be to allow the Senate to have one last chance at resolving the issue themselves. Dispite first appearences, this would not be pointless. In principle, ANY solution whereas the Senate resolves the tie is much better than any solution where the court resolves it, from a balance of power perspective. The judicial selecting the executive is a flawed notion -- once which I supported in NewCon because there existed no better venue for solving a crisis. Having said that, the court may feel it unresponsible to plunge the nation into a greater crisis by risking a second tie, which would also be a responsibility it would have to consider. Either way, it is pointless for us to debate the issue here. Either option is legal, should the court decide to take it, and members of the court are aware of the merits of both sides.

Ghengis -- I'm not sure I disagree with you, but it is possible, under our CoL, to have a runoff with two cannidates. The way the runoff clause is worded, it just is. Though this might not be a 'true' runoff in real life, in the context of this game it is allowed -- and it is up to the court as to if the runoff passage, which calls for a runoff even in two person elections (though perhaps that is not deliberate) superceedes the 'court resolves ties' passage.

Again, a 'recount' of the votes is, by far, the most sensible solution. Le'ts see if we have a true constitutional crisis before resorting to emergency measures. It is the logical, responsible first for the court to take in this matter, and again I'd urge everyone to support it.

-- adaMada

Sheik · November 18, 2002, 18:28

Quote:

1) I already said I was stepping down.

GhengisFarb, I was not aware that you had decided to officially step down. If you want to step down then either post it here officially so The Court can be positive that this is what you want or PM me.

Before you make an official decision I need to tell you that the number of valid votes has not been determined for this election yet and that it is possible at this time for either you or E_T to win.

GhengisFarb™ · November 18, 2002, 19:11

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik
GhengisFarb, I was not aware that you had decided to officially step down. If you want to step down then either post it here officially so The Court can be positive that this is what you want or PM me.

Before you make an official decision I need to tell you that the number of valid votes has not been determined for this election yet and that it is possible at this time for either you or E_T to win.

I stated in the Election thread that I intended to stand down. Aggie has been informed and E_T is continuing with the duties. The main reason we are going through with this is so we can determine if the court can handle a tied election. So far the court hasn't been able to resolve the situation but this is the first time it has had to deal with it.

If it is determined that I won the election (I highly doubt this will be the result) then I am prepared to serve, but if is extremely close then I would suggest E_T be allowed to continue. If I do win, I plan on trying to convince E_T to continue doing the CP portion at least as he has been doing it for a while and there is no since in disrupting the build queus.

Sheik · November 18, 2002, 19:17

Thank You.

E_T · November 18, 2002, 22:14

The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

adaMada · November 18, 2002, 22:20

Quote:

Originally posted by E_T
The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

E_T,
You've got to give the court some credit -- it's not easy to get things rolling. Poly was down yesterday night (when it sounds like the court was going to have a meeting), elections didn't close until the afternoon of the fifteenth (late at night in some timezones), and I know several members of the court were discussing the issue on the 16th. (Remember, that's when the two members issued the injunction).

I'm not saying I'm happy with the time frame this puts us in -- but the court deserves some slack considering the circumstances, and this is the best way to start the resolution, even if it does add a few days to the end result. (The ConCon had hoped that such a poll as this would have been started a day or two ago, which is why we put in those three days, but it's obviously not that easy to get a meeting of the court, and perhaps we should have taken these sort of factors into account when considering the timeline).

-- adaMada

GhengisFarb™ · November 18, 2002, 22:23

Quote:

Originally posted by E_T
The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

Exactly, this adds a week to the time for a DM to take over which is why I'm glad E_T is already doing it.

That's a quarter of the time in office. If this is the system we are to use, a poll to request to view the votes (I don't think a poll is necessary, if its a tie it should be known that you will look to see if any non-citizens had voted) should start within an hour of the end of the election.

Sheik · November 18, 2002, 22:26

Quote:

The problem I'm kind of having is the timeliness (or lack thereof) of this poll. Although the court might have required a few days to figure out what exactly it was going to do, IMHO, this poll should have been posted a few days earlier and have gotten this ball started rolling.

E_T

Thank you adaMada. We meet on Sundays and Poly was down. It also takes time to make a decision about what action to take. We have to propose a plan and then it has to be supported by the other justices. We will have a resolution shortly.

Sheik · November 18, 2002, 22:29

Quote:

That's a quarter of the time in office. If this is the system we are to use, a poll to request to view the votes (I don't think a poll is necessary, if its a tie it should be known that you will look to see if any non-citizens had voted) should start within an hour of the end of the election.

We can not skip this poll. This is the first time we have dealt with this issue so it took some time. If you want us to skip a poll like this in the future the senate will have to pass a law giving us that power.

E_T · November 18, 2002, 22:31

GF, I could use some help with the next turnchat. Could I get you to do the PW aspect for this next Gameplay? I do know that you can reduce the Jungle crews by 5 workers, with the change to Democracy.

Hopefully, by Friday, they can have a better Idea of what they will be doing.

E_T

GhengisFarb™ · November 18, 2002, 22:33

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik
If you want us to skip a poll like this in the future the senate will have to pass a law giving us that power.

That's what I'm suggesting.

Quote:

Originally posted by E_T
GF, I could use some help with the next turnchat. Could I get you to do the PW aspect for this next Gameplay? I do know that you can reduce the Jungle crews by 5 workers, with the change to Democracy.

Hopefully, by Friday, they can have a better Idea of what they will be doing.

E_T

I'll see if I can squeeze it in, this is a VERY hectic week.

E_T · November 18, 2002, 22:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Sheik

Thank you adaMada. We meet on Sundays and Poly was down. It also takes time to make a decision about what action to take. We have to propose a plan and then it has to be supported by the other justices. We will have a resolution shortly.

No problem and I fully understand. I just know that time is marchin' on and the month is only so long.

E_T

Togas · November 19, 2002, 02:00

I have a great deal of respect for the Court, but in this instance, I have to say that The Court is doing the wrong thing here.

I'll admit that we made a mistake in the Con Con to add in Art. III Sec 5(a). Should have just left the power as is without requiring a poll of the people. Would save a few days.

But now that it's taken the Court three days to act on this "contested election" and decide to post a poll that will take another 3 days, then then spend several days reviewing voter records with no clear idea of what citizen registry to use and no idea how to decide how to disqualify voters .... we will be lucky if this matter is sorted out by December. Aggie's new government CANNOT survive with a Domestic Minister on hold. He's going to have to appoint a temporary one now or take on the very exhaustive duties himself.

I'd rather see the Court finish up the Mr Oranage vs. Reddawg case that's been lingering about for more than two weeks than delve into an election that has been resolved by the withdrawal of one of the parties from the race.

Please. Would you guys just call this issue "moot" and then discuss amongst yourselves how it will be handled next time?

--Togas

notyoueither · November 19, 2002, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by Togas
I'd rather see the Court finish up the Mr Oranage vs. Reddawg case that's been lingering about for more than two weeks than delve into an election that has been resolved by the withdrawal of one of the parties from the race.

Unfortunately, GF has never been entirely consistent, and has not clearly stepped aside in direct messages with more than one member of the court AFAIK.

We understand that this is frustrating for a lot of you. However, the Constitution provides for the President to continue on missing a Minister. Aggie has sensibly chosen to do so. The court will be done long before December IMHO.

re case 5. Will be posting tonight.

GhengisFarb™ · November 19, 2002, 08:26

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither

Unfortunately, GF has never been entirely consistent, and has not clearly stepped aside in direct messages with more than one member of the court AFAIK.

We understand that this is frustrating for a lot of you. However, the Constitution provides for the President to continue on missing a Minister. Aggie has sensibly chosen to do so. The court will be done long before December IMHO.

re case 5. Will be posting tonight.

I have been very consistent, I have stated I would step down in every thread, I told Aggie to let E_T handle the DM duties while it was resolved. The only reason I have not completely "washed my hands" of the issue is because notyoueither said it would only take a few (2-3) days.

I don't see why the court is laying the situation at my feet as I have tried to make it easy on the system and insure we had a DM no matter what the elections status.

Since my actions have apparently done nothing but undermine the court and prevent the nation of Apolytonia from having a DM I hereby withdraw completely from the Democracy Game.

Apparently that is the only way this issue can be resolved. E_T is the DM, the court is unneeded, and we now know a new system for tied elections needs to be established.

There, I voted for myself and I am no longer a citizen of the game so my vote doesn't count and E_T won by one vote.

E_T · November 19, 2002, 09:51

GF, you really don't need to leave the game entirely.

This NewCon, along with any other type of document of this nature, cannot be complete and have everything thought if in exacting detail. We like to think that this new document has everything we will need, but we then find things that were missed. THat's why it's ammendable, and this issue should be that catalist for the creation of a Ammendment to properly address this issue (#1 anybody).

I was actually looking forwad to you being one of the driving forces behind the proposal, discussion/compramise and submission to a vote to add it to the NewCon. I hope you'll stay for those reasons, atleast.

E_T

Togas · November 19, 2002, 16:49

I didn't see any ambiguity in GF's withdrawal post prior to the termination of the election, nor has he ever changed his stance except after being told that the court has taken over and had the election up for review.

GF is so sincere in his desire to withdraw that he's willing to withdraw from the game to resolve this non issue.

Please, guys, for the love of our first New Con team, give up this injunction. There isn't a contested dispute.

--Togas

Shiber · November 19, 2002, 17:03

I concur with Togas.
I for one don't want to see GF leave over this dispute.

E_T · November 19, 2002, 17:54

I never had any problems with either GF conseeding or with the court working it out. I've held off from trying to fill staff positions because I was curious as to how the court would resove this (or future issues) and within what kind of timeframe. I'm fairly flexable.

I don't think that its something to quit the game over, but just as with anyone else, that's GF's progative. If he does go, I know that we'll miss him.

E_T

=OttomusCeasar= · November 20, 2002, 18:35

So, has the Court simply decided it can't handle ties or our they going to try to come up with a system.

This is going to really suck if everytime we have a tie the court just pesters the candidates until one of them leaves the game.