This is just an idea I'm thinking up here at school.

First:

Every person sends in their nominations for who they want. Self-nominations acceptable, etc.

Second:

Each Presidential nominee makes a statement, or perhaps takes a "Town Hall" meeting to discuss their issues.

Third:

Primaries are held to select a fewer number of candidates (to avoid the problem of running in to having a tie)

Fourth:

Debates are held between the candidates, depending on the number of candidates.

Fifth:

Elections. There will be no electoral college for a candidate. All votes are equal, with citizenship of the Democracy game. Election "day" lasts for 36-48 hours.

Extras:

All elections will be supervised by an election supervisory comittee.

Not bad....not bad.

This is how it works now:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) from current cabinet positions only. (7 possible nominees) I (MOD Liasion) runs the election, opens/closes the polls etc... Votes last 2 days (48 hours)



Now....I like some of your ideas, and some I find impractable.
With Your, and My ideas combined, I propose this:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) but only from cabinet members (I could extend this to Deputy Leaders as well. But not anyone. The reason is that cabinet members have an idea how things are run....thus better suited for the position. Plus in real life someone doesn't get elected without having some political background. (Exception, Jessie Ventura ;))
I (MOD Liasion) Still runs the election. Starting and closing of Polls. A debate is a good idea! A civilian organization could be formed to construct the questions for the nominees. Then I (MOD Liasion) would conduct the debate. No one would be allow to post in the topic except for the participates and myself. We could allow Primaries if necessary. Elections are still 2 days long. And there isn't really a need for an electorial comittee as that is my job as MOD liasion. If there is a tie, we have a vote-off of the two tied indiviuals.

So...what do you think?

is there a limit as to how many elections one can take partin, i.e i run for ALL cabinet spots? i think we should limit it to one or maybe two..........

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
is there a limit as to how many elections one can take partin, i.e i run for ALL cabinet spots? i think we should limit it to one or maybe two..........

Ohhh...good question.

I would say 2 Max. And if one person wins two positions then they must forfit one the the runner up, who would become leader. With 3rd place becoming Deputy.

What do you think of that? Added to what I already proposed?

While having debates for all cabinet positions in addition to the presidency would be a bit much, I think there should be some way where those running for cabinet positions get to say something in favor of themselves. Maybe start a thread where each candidate running gets to have one post that describes how they will be a good person to elect. There could be either one thread for each position or one thread for all positions together, depending on how many people are running.

If we do any of these debate/posting things, then we'll probably have to change the time frame for nominations and elections.

Edit: Corn's post above mine sounds good for that dilemma.

seems allright to me

ps. since this was such a short post ill put in a little joke i made up myself; personX is so stupid, that when he gets a mail from the civ fanatics forum mailer he replys:lol: :lol:

yeah i know it sux.............

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
ps. since this was such a short post ill put in a little joke i made up myself; personX is so stupid, that when he gets a mail from the civ fanatics forum mailer he replys:lol: :lol:

yeah i know it sux.............

That's not that bad! I'm sure it happens.

Let's get a joke from the Annuals of Cat, Dog, and Parrot.

A Cat, Dog and Parrot go into a bar.
The Cat says to the bartender, "I'll have a beer".
The Dog says to the bartender, "I'll have a coke."
The Parrot says to the bartender, "I'll have a "White Wine."
The Bartender says, "Sorry, no pets allowed."

Anyway...to stay on topic. Apollo....I think it's a little overkill to have a thread for everyone running. But one big petitioning and promoting thread could do it!

If you can run for two seats, can you make two posts in the promoting thread, or do you do one longer one?

BTW, when are the first elections?

The first elections will begin Jan. 8th. The new term begins the 10th of every month....(so roughly 30 days per term.) Nominations and promotion begins 5 days before.....thus Jan 3rd.

Originally posted by CornMaster
Now....I like some of your ideas, and some I find impractable.
With Your, and My ideas combined, I propose this:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) but only from cabinet members (I could extend this to Deputy Leaders as well. But not anyone. The reason is that cabinet members have an idea how things are run....thus better suited for the position. Plus

So...what do you think?

Owch. Just nominations from cabinet members? That I really disagree with...

I mean, look at people like Ronald Reagan, he became governor of the largest state in the U.S. with no political background other than his own study. Whether you like him or not, it is a pretty amazing feat to be able to do that.

Or maybe, I didn't explain my ideas right: I meant people nominate, and then they vote on who they want to be their candidate. So there's almost like two elections (and there really, when you think about it, is)

In real life, an elected governor will have the state govt to run things. In our game, if our new president is lame and doesn't know his role, the game will grind to a stop ...... Cos the whole game is actually being played out on his comp. If he fails in leading the game due to inexperience, that's pretty bad.

Maybe for the future when everybody is clear on all aspects of the game, but for now, continuity is more important.

I agree with rmsharpe's proposal that nominations for President should be allowed for ALL citizens other wise our fledgling democracy won't be very democratic - there would be a ruling class and an under class - ripe conditions for a revolution and civil war. :rolleyes:

Instead of allowing self nomination have the requirement that a candidate must be nominated and seconded by others. This will have the effect of limiting the number of people standing for election and and be a reality check for those with Presidential ambitions. It will also involve lobbying others regarding your suitability thus introducing a very real element of the democratic process.

Anybody can nominate the Presidential candidate; just that the nominee must be fr the present cabinet, no? For reasons of continuity?

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Anybody can nominate the Presidential candidate; just that the nominee must be fr the present cabinet, no? For reasons of continuity?

Excatly. For example.....if Fayadi decided to challenge for president in the beginning...and didn't show up for 5 days (like he didn't) then the game grinds to a halt.

I'd prefer that the Presidential Canadiates have experience. I'll extend the possible Canadiates to Deputy leaders as well....but in this case....still some of them have no shown up yet.

So it's a gray area.

I like the cabinet idea. otherwise, I might win :)

if someone votes for me, but everyone else votes for themselvs, I would win.

in the USA, all you have to do is fight in the military, and you are automatically in. even though this is a very bad thing in most other countries, the USA is unique politically {any non-americans can back me up on that} thats not nessacarley a bad thing though.

in Canada, and most other countries, you only become leader after years and years and years of political servace. our youngest PM was Joe Clark, a Progressive Conservative {Conservative for those outside the USA, Liberal for those in the USA} he was 39 when he was elevted in the 70's. He was in officer for about a year. since, he has returned after the PC Party collapsed, and is now the leader again, but the party is no longer a first rate party. There used to be a 2 party system in Canada, the Liberals {democrats} and the Conservatives {between democrats and republicans}. a new Right wing party was started though, the Canadian Alliance {republican} and ever since only the Liberal Party has been elected. The current leader, and Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, is almost 70.

Well thats quite the lesson on canadian political history, but my point:

it takes a while to get to the top, and very rarley do you go from nothing to Prime Minsiter or President. infact, I do not remember it EVER happening. since we dont have real states with any real power, or a senate, the only 'government' we have is the Cabinet. therefore, I feel that its right that only Cabinet people can run. they should all be automatically nominated. but thats just my opinion

***
I too am for limiting it to those with experience. I would hope it wouldn't be neccessary because the enlightened citizens of our great neation would want someone with a proven track record of experience and dependability. These qualities coupled with sound judgement are easily identified in the cabinet positions.

That said, I would posit one question. What about those in the future who are citizens at the time, but in the past had held high office?

I also agree that a person can run for two posts, but I think that should only be allowed for those running for president. Otherwise we may have quite a mess to sort out. It could concievably be possible for a Ministry to be held by a third or lower place candidate. This would be rare, but if someone wins two elections, and the second place person won a different election, all of a sudden we could have a person with 1 or 2 votes out of 40-50 running a ministry.

I understand the desire of my fellow citizens (including those that hold cabinet office) to ensure that the position of President is filled with a person who has not only the capability but also the commitment to do the job and keep the game going at a steady pace.

However, it is a fallacy to argue that a person that holds a cabinet position has better credentials for the position of President than a mere citizen, because they have experience performing their cabinet role - we're not talking about the real world here. :rolleyes:

A citizen who has been involved in the game and making regular contributions has just as much idea about the requirements of the Presidential position as anyone performing a cabinet role.

Surely the important criteria is whether a person has the knowledge, capability and commitment to perform the role and just as importantly can convince enough people that is so.

To limit the selection of President to those who already hold office is not just elitist and anti-democratic, more importantly such a limited field will preclude choice of the best available field of candidates.

This humble citizen wishes to make it clear that he has no interest in standing for the position of President, but could not sit idly by and watch the exclusion of my fellow citizens from the leadership of our (soon to be) great nation.

As the Civ2 trade advisor said: "I concur, your excellency"

The system that candidates can only be current cabinet members seems very anti-democratic, IMO.

Not everyone shares those views....

I will extend the possible canadites to Deputy positions too....but not to everyone.

Originally posted by CornMaster
Not everyone shares those views....

I will extend the possible canadites to Deputy positions too....but not to everyone.

No doubt, not everyone agrees on this issue, and because it is one of such fundamental principle to the way we operate as a democratic society why not put it to the vote in a poll.

Ironic isn't it Corn, that a good ol' lefty like yourself is acting as an autocrat to deny at least half of our citizens the right to go for the top job - perhaps we should rename this the 'partial democracy game'. :p

Thanks for making the date of the first elections the 8th January because if they had been at the weekend then I wouldn't have been able to vote at all.

As I understand it, the system will be that everyone gets a single vote for each of the positions and then the person who is in second place in each of the elections will have the position of deputy for that department. Is this the case?

I will extend the possible canadites to Deputy positions too....but not to everyone.

Surely the important criteria is whether a person has the knowledge, capability and commitment to perform the role and just as importantly can convince enough people that is so.

I would imagine that the fact that the candidates have experience as an able cabinet minister and have shown it consistently throughout the forum then the members would be more inclined to vote for him/her/it.

However, it is a fallacy to argue that a person that holds a cabinet position has better credentials for the position of President than a mere citizen, because they have experience performing their cabinet role - we're not talking about the real world here.

A citizen who has been involved in the game and making regular contributions has just as much idea about the requirements of the Presidential position as anyone performing a cabinet role.
It is not technical capabilities that we are disputing rather that the pres must be both sensible and democratic about vital decisions. Just because someone has been making good suggestions does not mean that they are good for the job. If anything then that person is more valuable as a non-office member..

Personally I would have a vote prior to the 3rd Jan just to see if anyone actually wants an election or not.. We could be doing a lot of work for nothing.

ps.. Knight Dragon... Wot's this War Church business!!
:eek:

Well IMO i would absolutly prefer that only cabinet member's can run for president. Believe me ,it's not an easy job ,it's not to under-estimate.

I have some requirements (quickly) written here that a candidate for president must have:

1 time
2 responsibilety
Believe me ,there is a lot of work to this game.Ask my leaders like Animepornstar ,Sixchan ,Unknownsoldier and other's.
3 continuality
If the president is gone for a certain time ,the game stop's.
4 vision in judgement
A president must make some important dicission's ,he must know what the effect of them will be on the long term.
5 diplomatic gift's
You will have to motivate youre leader's to do their work,and you will have to keep good ties with the moderators :)
6 flexibilety
This game is at an experimental fase. The president is in control of the game.He must construct easy way's to organize the beraucracy of the decission making and integrate them into the actual game in a flexible way.
7 Leadership
The ability to lead the way if something must change.Or to help youre leader's if they have question's.And to make proposal's on how to organize the work.

technical:
1 The abbilety to post hyperlink's and screenshot's
2 The abbilety to use information media like mail and pm
note: this seems obvious ,but not all member's have the knowledge to do these things.

In general ,i even say the technical requirement's are a must if you want to go for a kabinet position.

I try my best to be a president.And i hereby announce that i will run for a second term.My biggest pro: experience ,and believe me ,experience is very important in this game.

As for cabinet position's ,i will most probably vote for the leader's of my gouverment that have done most work ,as i believe that they will make the best option to choose from.

And again i must stress all the member's of this game: Responsibilety is a very important thing here.If you wan't to run for a position ,you must be prepared to do the work that is involved in it.
Leader's have a certain power though.They decide what the option's of a poll are ,and this is a fair power.You will notice that later into the game.The option's of the poll's are made up by the leader's, this why they could even push the poll towards a certain option. :)
And i think this power is a fine addition to the game ,and it make's the leader position's interresting.Especily those position's of millitary leader, diplomatic leader,Domestic leader or exploration leader ,because the dicission making it these department's must be flexible.The science leader has less work ,but also less power.The millitary leader has most individual power.You may not know what i'm talking about now ,but you will notice it later.

This may not be the correct thread to post this in, but here goes anyway... :)
I think I'm correct in believing that the mods are able to see who has voted for what in which poll and to modify the polls as they see fit. This will no doubt cause more work for CM & AoA, but I think it will also make the game more realistic and fun. If they don't mind that is....
My idea is as follows:
It is not applicable yet, but once we have two cities then it will become so. Basically, I assume that we are going to appoint a governor for each new city, and also transfer some citizens to "live" in that city. Each time there is a poll to decide what will be constructed in that city, I think that the mods could look up which option the governor has voted for, and increase the number of votes they can cast. For this system, I say that the governor's vote counts as 3, and each citizen's counts as 2. This will give greater weighting to the city's inhabitants in votes that concern them directly and could lead to some interesting situations as a city revolts against the recommendations of the central government and doesn't built what they are told to. It will still be possible for a government to organise a block vote and impose their will on the city, but this will have to be well-organised to succeed.
I know it's more work for our already overworked mods, but it will improve the roleplaying aspect of this game no end. I think. :D

If you only knew how badly I got hammered for suggesting in Off topic that some people should have multiple votes...

I think that that system will too decentralize our government. We could run into a serious case of NIMBY (Not in my backyard) when it comes to the production of military units. Also we could have issues with settler distribution. Good, thought, but I am against it.:)

That's as maybe, but aren't we trying to play a roleplaying game here, rather than just a game of Civ? I'm not surprised that the hierarchy don't want this to happen. Decentralisation is inevitable in most countries these days. Maybe this could be introduced only after we have democracy, as despotism is the only government form absolute centralisation is relevant for. If the government orders a city to build another settler, but the people actually living in that city think that they are exposed to either another civ's troops or barbarians then they will want more defensive units and city walls as well. That would be roleplaying, whereas the system we are playing now is simply a big slow game of Civ. I'm not protesting about the way things are going - in fact, I'm quite happy with it, but for realism's sake then I say governors should have a bigger say in their city's affairs.
[Anyone else finding it really obvious that I would like a governorship at some point? I did say that when I signed up though as I can't play at weekends, and probably not at all over Christmas (from Friday) :D]

Originally posted by Pellaken
in the USA, all you have to do is fight in the military, and you are automatically in. Bob Dole, a decorated WW II veteran lost to Bill Clinton, a draft dodger.

So much for that. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by duke o' york
I think I'm correct in believing that the mods are able to see who has voted for what in which poll and to modify the polls as they see fit.

No....we can't do that.

AoA, perhaps a little bit of an overstatement. I often compare Canada to the USA, and at the time I was thinking Eisenhower. In Canada, to elected a military official of any kind would be unthinkable, I dont think it has ever happened, but it probably has sometime on our past. certainley, no PM made his fame as a General... also, not PM has made his fame as the leader of a province, unlike the USA where many presidents have been state leaders. With out president, in our game, being more american style the canadian style, perhaps we will have similar voting records. Charles DuGalle for example, in France, was a General of sorts. My statement was 2fold:

First, another push for my system whereby someone, a non cabinet member, can command certain, LARGE, groups of military units. perhaps "general incharge of the zulu front" and these generals can run for office. I know this has already been thrown out the window, but as in any democracy, opinons change, and I feel it as my duty to bring up old points every once and a while. when we are in the year 1500+ I think this suggestion will become popular

second, since my suggestion was thrown out, it was a 'good' for the current system, whereby only government officials can be elected, I was saying that "only these 2 people are electable, and 1 dosent exist" there are always exceptions, like Ventura, but he is not the president.

I hope this clears things up, I tend to be very messy with what I say, but I assure you, I do mean something.

Originally posted by jomey




I would imagine that the fact that the candidates have experience as an able cabinet minister and have shown it consistently throughout the forum then the members would be more inclined to vote for him/her/it.

No argument - that's not my point.


It is not technical capabilities that we are disputing rather that the pres must be both sensible and democratic about vital decisions. Just because someone has been making good suggestions does not mean that they are good for the job. If anything then that person is more valuable as a non-office member..

My point is one of both principle and practicality. The principle I would have thought was obvious if this is really to be a 'game of democracy' why limit who can stand for the top job, their suitability will be tested in the campaign period and if they don't have what it takes, I have confidence that my fellow citizens will be able to see that.

The practical aspect to this is two fold, why limit the talent pool available for President by at least half - I have no doubt that there are 'citizens' who, in the real world because of their work or study have the necessary skills to do the job. I'm not underestimating the commitment and work required but with no disrespect to our esteemed el Presidente, you don't have to be a mental acrobat to do the job! :rolleyes:

The other practical aspect to what I propose is that the more 'ownership' you give citizens of the democratic process the greater chance we have of higher participation and interest in the game - which may wain if citizens feel they don't have a fair involvement, such as who can stand for the Presidency.

There is no reason to fear that by allowing ALL citizens the right to stand that we will end up with an inferior President - quite the reverse.

Have faith in your fellow citizens!

:goodjob:

My point is one of both principle and practicality. The principle I would have thought was obvious if this is really to be a 'game of democracy' why limit who can stand for the top job, their suitability will be tested in the campaign period and if they don't have what it takes, I have confidence that my fellow citizens will be able to see that.

IMO I would like that a president would be chosen among leader's/maybe deputy's and/or gouvernor's that have proven to have the consitentsy to hold up the job.
Everybody can still go to a presidential position ,by first going for a leader position ,and then going for president.And everybody can vote for who the president must be.

The practical aspect to this is two fold, why limit the talent pool available for President by at least half - I have no doubt that there are 'citizens' who, in the real world because of their work or study have the necessary skills to do the job. I'm not underestimating the commitment and work required but with no disrespect to our esteemed el Presidente, you don't have to be a mental acrobat to do the job!

I'm not saying that you have to be a mental acrobat for it.:rolleyes:
i'm just saying what the responsabilety's are so that everybody get's a clear view on it.
i'm not saying i'll be the best president around here forever ,but i think it could be far worse than me.And i would like it that a player can prove his trustworthiness for president through a leadership position.Beside's ,it's much more fun for role playing.It gives a sort of real political live in the game and devide's the member's in classes.

The other practical aspect to what I propose is that the more 'ownership' you give citizens of the democratic process the greater chance we have of higher participation and interest in the game - which may wain if citizens feel they don't have a fair involvement, such as who can stand for the Presidency.

I Think the member's can have a lot of involvement into the game.eventually ,they vote ,and thereby decide on every poll ,so for every poll that we address to the people.that is already a fair amount for the moment.But the ammount of Bureaucracy in our game will boom after that we have 20-25 city's.
The member's decide through poll's already a lot of issue's of the game.In the near future they will have to vote for about 100 poll's every 2 day's at this current rate.And i'm not talking about war-time yet.And it only get's more zealotius to the end.

There is no reason to fear that by allowing ALL citizens the right to stand that we will end up with an inferior President - quite the reverse.

IMO there is no reason to risk it.

Man i'm already becoming a conservative :crazyeyes

el Presidente Ducky,

I think you're doing a great job and my comments about the nature and complexity of the Presidents role were not a personal reflection on you but rather a general comment regarding the job. :goodjob:

I humbly beseech ye almighty Ducky, to show yourself as a man of the people and support the ability of citizens to stand for President! :D

Weighing in on this issue...

I place the issue of "fully open" elections in the same category as parties and representative city government. They're all good ideas, and perhaps would enhance some of the role playing nature of the game...but, at this point, it'd be too complicated to designate them as "rules." First, I think this first election is the most important - and, for this election, the president ought to come from one of the original cabinet members. I think the difference in degree of complexity/bureacracy from the 1st month to the 2nd will be greater than any month thereafter, and it'd be too risky to have the winner actually unable to handle the responsibilities. Perhaps by the end of the second month, when everyone has a very good feel of how the complexity of a bureaucratic nation will be run, elections could be opened up to open nominations.

(Quickly, regarding parties and representative city government - I like the former more than the latter, but parties should be derived from issues, not issues derived from parties...and, we haven't had that many real issues quite yet, aside from these administrative disputes.)