Pre-amendment Discussion: Single-Candidate Elections

Shiber · December 23, 2002, 06:40

Following the recent VP confirmation poll, several people including myself have voiced their discontent of the current system of confirmation polls.
I think that a change in the system is necessary. I propose that we set a bottom barrier for single-candidate elections or "confirmation polls" so that a candidate who is running alone for a certain government position would need at least 66% or 70% of the votes in favor, instead of just a regular majority vote.

DAVOUT · December 23, 2002, 06:50

I desagree intensely regarding single candidates. The confirmation thing is a totally different matter which cannot be solved by playing with the number required to be confirmed.

Shiber · December 23, 2002, 07:18

Could you please elaborate?

DAVOUT · December 23, 2002, 07:31

The main quality that a single candidate displays is that he is candidate. The game is in need of people accepting to held the elected jobs; when only one candidate steps up, the reproach cannot be made to this candidate but to all other gamers, and making things more difficult for him is not only unfair, it is self defeating.

I am not against a VP nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate, provided that the Senate does not think that the confirmation is equivalent as an election. I already explain that several times and have not yet been heard. If the Senate want to choose the VP, lets return to the elected VP. In this line, changing the majority for confirming the VP just makes the things more difficult as well.

Shiber · December 23, 2002, 07:51

I don't see why we should make it easier for a person to become VP just because we are short of candidates. In fact, the whole approach of "we can't get other candidates so let's elect this one out of default" seems wrong to me.

DAVOUT · December 23, 2002, 07:53

You certainly have a proposal to offset the lack of candidates.

Aidun · December 23, 2002, 10:58

Perhaps a rule that obligesthe President to find a minimum of two candidates. Maybe it will solve the problem because I think there are always people who could be candidate but simply do not announce: there is only a lack of candidates. Maybe the problem will not be solved by this new rule because if there are really no people willing (for any reason), even if the President asks them to, even the President cannot find any candidates: there is a lack of capable people.

Shiber · December 23, 2002, 11:06

Well, I for one intend to run for FAM next term, but should I not be elected then I promise that should I be asked by the next term president to be his vice then I will accept his proposal. Otherwise I will most likely look for an opening in regional administration.
It's high time that I started participating in this game more actively and took some responsibility.

GodKing · December 23, 2002, 13:48

Congrats Shiber. Glad to have you on board. More people running, the better it will be.

Togas · December 23, 2002, 16:13

There is no need to raise the bar for single-candidate confirmation polls. What we do need is for the Senate to act responsibly in their confirmation of a candidate.

Blindly confirming a candidate because the President picked him, or feeling that you have no other choice because there's probably no one else is not acceptable.

The confirmation poll for VP was a way to merge two interests into one. The President has an interest in choosing the best person to serve as his "deputy President", and also being able to pick the best of those who lost in the minister elections. The Senate has an interest in having a direct say in who will be the President IF the elected President cannot perform his job.

Therefore, the President picks, but the Senate must confirm, which basically means the majority of the Senate must agree with the President.

If the Senate does not confirm, the President must make another choice.

There is no standard for who can and cannot be confirmed. You may vote against a candidate for any reason whatsoever. You may vote for them for any reason as well, but I hope that our Senate would be more responsible with who they make responsible for our country.

--Togas

pikesfan · December 23, 2002, 16:59

I don’t agree with this proposal, which amounts to punishing the candidate for being the only candidate. It’s not the candidate’s fault if he is the only one. If there were two candidates, he would have to get 50%+1 to be elected, which means that 50%-1 could be unhappy with him anyway. Why should he have to get more just because he is the only candidate?

If someone thinks he can do a better job than that candidate, he should run. If someone doesn’t like the candidate, he can always vote no.

Meshelic · December 23, 2002, 22:34

I agree with this proposal, although I understand the arguments presented here, I don't think that they hold as much water.

Either the Senate should have to approve overwhelmingly with 65-70% of vote, or the Vice-President should be an elected position and not a nominated one.

notyoueither · December 23, 2002, 23:16

We opted to make it the way it is to avoid the possibility of a President having a VP with whom he could not work productively.

Maybe allowing him to choose 2 for the senate to choose from would be OK. However, that might further discourage some candidates. It could be the other edge of a sharp sword.

I believe Togas has it right. The President must make his choice responsibly. The senate must vote responsibly. If these things do not happen, no system will work properly.

Kloreep · December 24, 2002, 00:58

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
We opted to make it the way it is to avoid the possibility of a President having a VP with whom he could not work productively.

/me hears whispers of "Linney"...

Quote:

Maybe allowing him to choose 2 for the senate to choose from would be OK. However, that might further discourage some candidates. It could be the other edge of a sharp sword.

I would okay with that, but I see no reason to change things as they stand.

And if the most recent VP approval is what people are thinking of, I don't see how this would help. As Arnelos stated, there was no other willing candidate with equal or greater qualifications than panag's.

Quote:

I believe Togas has it right. The President must make his choice responsibly. The senate must vote responsibly. If these things do not happen, no system will work properly.

MrWhereItsAt · December 24, 2002, 11:11

Generally, as ever, Togas is much in the right. However, as one of the most annoyed by the current state of affairs, I would suggest that for confirmation polls, which are by their very definition single candidate races, we include at least a write-in option. I believe (and will continue to do so stubbornly until someone proves me wrong with cold hard facts) that many voted because panag was presented as the only candidate, and there was no alternative. This in my mind was equivalent to saying:

1. vote panag
2. vote against panag (but there's no-one else willing out of many possibles)
3. abstain and your vote counts for sh*t

As you may be able to tell I am uncharacteristically annoyed by all this and wil support any realistic solution to this problem, which I consider the most serious in our history.

Arnelos · December 24, 2002, 16:27

The point of the confirmation poll and allowing only the president to make the nominations is that the President and the Senate MUST AGREE on a choice. If there's a way to devise a simpler system to ensure that the President and Senate agree on a single candidate (a single candidate who ACCEPTS the job), to quote Mr. Ross Perot... "I'm all ears"