View Full Version : Deputies


Alphawolf
Nov 15, 2005, 02:14 PM
How should deputies be appointed/elected? Any please post your opinions.

Informational (non-binding)

-the Wolf

Alphawolf
Nov 15, 2005, 02:25 PM
I went with combination as you can see HERE (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=140640). Deputies in national offices should be the runner up and Governors should appoint their own deputies.

-the Wolf

Knightlancer
Nov 15, 2005, 04:30 PM
I agree that it should be a combination of election and appointment.

-KL

CivGeneral
Nov 15, 2005, 07:32 PM
This one I am automaticly going to vote for and support that deputies should be the ones who obtain a second place standing in the elections, the only exception to this is if the canidate wins uncontested then he or she can apoint a deputy so long as the canidate wins an uncontested election. Apointments of deputies just creates favortism.

RoboPig
Nov 15, 2005, 07:36 PM
and no conflicting opinion either

Gloriana
Nov 16, 2005, 09:51 AM
I say the runner-up should become deputy, uncontested election or no.

greekguy
Nov 16, 2005, 02:15 PM
Runner-up in an election should be deputy. This is the fairest way to decide.

I say the runner-up should become deputy, uncontested election or no.

If a race is uncontested, that means only 1 person is running. If 1 person is running, then there is no runner-up. ;)

RegentMan
Nov 16, 2005, 05:43 PM
Appointment of deputies. Some say this creates favoritism (hogwash) but it also stops people who just accept their nomination for acceptance's sake from coming into power.

CivGeneral
Nov 16, 2005, 07:30 PM
I say the runner-up should become deputy, uncontested election or no.
Actualy, the difference between contested and uncontested election is that: Contested elections have two or more canidates running while an uncontested election only has one person running.

Pegasus_wings
Nov 17, 2005, 04:55 PM
I think the runner up should always be the deputy.

Donovan Zoi
Nov 17, 2005, 05:23 PM
The deputy should be appointed. Why should an election winner be forced to choose his electoral adversary to be his assistant? This is a poor outcome for both parties involved. In most instances, the winning candidate will choose the runner-up from his own accord, especially if that person is a newcomer that didn't get a fair shake at the polls. However, the winner should not be forced to do this by law.

Appointments lead to elitism? Hardly. But a runner-up deputy mandate leads to unrepresentative democracy. We want political parties, but now we wish to force them to work together? Make up your minds, people! :rolleyes:

EDIT: Why aren't these polls public? :)

Black_Hole
Nov 17, 2005, 05:54 PM
The deputy should be appointed. Why should an election winner be forced to choose his electoral adversary to be his assistant? This is a poor outcome for both parties involved. In most instances, the winning candidate will choose the runner-up from his own accord, especially if that person is a newcomer that didn't get a fair shake at the polls. However, the winner should not be forced to do this by law.

Appointments lead to elitism? Hardly. But a runner-up deputy mandate leads to unrepresentative democracy. We want political parties, but now we wish to force them to work together? Make up your minds, people! :rolleyes:

EDIT: Why aren't these polls public? :)
I agree, its better to have a deputy and minister to work together, not creating wars against each other...

Also public polls are preferred...

Alphawolf
Nov 17, 2005, 06:35 PM
EDIT: Why aren't these polls public? :)

Entirely my fault, I forgot to check the little box that makes them public and didn't feel like making another poll. Sorry.:blush: You will notice I remembered that on the other polls I started.

-the Wolf

Man'O'Action
Nov 17, 2005, 11:09 PM
I agree with Blackhole and Donovan. This isn't real politics and is therefore not going to be nearly as cutthroat but even so, a leader should be able to have the help of people he trusts and who support him.

To have the runner up be deputy would be putting a cat and a dog in the same cage and expecting them to suddenly work in harmony.

Furthermore, to make your opponent your deputy is an easy campaign promise to make, and if that is what the people wanted it would propel you to victory.

Gloriana
Nov 18, 2005, 04:23 AM
Actualy, the difference between contested and uncontested election is that: Contested elections have two or more canidates running while an uncontested election only has one person running.

Oops sorry, misinterpretation. Thought that uncontested was winning with a difference of more than 10% of the votes...

Well in that case there's not much else to do than to appoint someone is there?

Man'O'Action
Nov 18, 2005, 11:17 AM
I know a few people have spoken out with a lot of confidence that they want the deputies to be the runner up, but could someone speak to the logic of it?

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of someone that the majority of the voters do not support being placed in a position of responsibility to help some one that deputy opposes.

This seems like the antithesis of representational government. At the very, very least they should be elected independently, but somebody that is voted down by the electorate should not be rewarded with a position of responsibility.

I would like to invite a member of the other side to give some details that speak to their motivation. Gloriana, CivGeneral, you both seem to be in strong support of the idea of loser wins. Can you elaborate a bit on your logic?

Alphawolf
Nov 18, 2005, 02:35 PM
As I've said I'm in the mixed party, which is really the minority. :( So I'll let someone else make an argument in favor of runner-up since I can see it both ways. I'll just make two points.

I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of someone that the majority of the voters do not support being placed in a position of responsibility to help some one that deputy opposes.
These elections will have more than just 2 people running in them, it is rather unlikely that anyone will get a *majority* of votes.

This seems like the antithesis of representational government. At the very, very least they should be elected independently, but somebody that is voted down by the electorate should not be rewarded with a position of responsibility.
I think you are seeing these as two canidate races, they are not an election could comeout something like this:
A got 27.6%
B got 27.2%
C got 18.3%
D got 13.9%
E got 13.0%
If any one here got voted down it was D and E, B simply did not receive as man votes as A. Also it's not the antithesis of representational government if this is what the represented wants. ;)

-the Wolf

Gloriana
Nov 18, 2005, 03:10 PM
This seems like the antithesis of representational government. At the very, very least they should be elected independently, but somebody that is voted down by the electorate should not be rewarded with a position of responsibility.

I don't see your point here Man O'Action. If we take Alpha's example here again:

A got 27.6%
B got 27.2%
C got 18.3%
D got 13.9%
E got 13.0%

Then B certainly isn't voted down, nor is he the loser. He is the one supported most for the position concerned after A, so that makes him the best man for the job.

Of course you could take this a step further by taking ANOTHER vote for deputies, which could easily change the outcome as all the people that voted for A can now vote for someone else, but I think the results from the first vote are strong enough not to have to take another vote. Also, it would seriously slow the game down as you can only have deputy elections AFTER all ministers have been decided on.

In case there are only 2 people running for office, it doesn't make sense to have deputy elections either since there will be only 1 participant, barring some unlikely cases perhaps.

So there's my argumentation for my pro runner-up vote.

Cyc
Nov 18, 2005, 04:30 PM
Personally, I've seen a lot of DG elections. I totally understand CG's point of view, but I think appointed Deputies are the best way to go. Simply because the Deputy is the elected officials right hand man and should be hand-picked, not forced upon the official.

One thing to consider is that almost all candidates in an election will have the same point of view or approach to solving the problem. So there may not be any problem with the flow of ideas between candidates. But sometimes the method to the means varies a little too much.

Another thing is, personally, I've never lost an election, but if I had, would I want to be the Deputy. Probably not. Why create a law that forces me to be a Deputy, so I have to refuse and cause the President (or whoever) to take the extra time to fill the position because of my action?

The reasons go on and on, but you'd probably have to witness 6 or seven DGs to pick up all the small points. Appointing Deputies is the easiest way to go.

Man'O'Action
Nov 18, 2005, 04:46 PM
Of course you could take this a step further by taking ANOTHER vote for deputies, which could easily change the outcome as all the people that voted for A can now vote for someone else, but I think the results from the first vote are strong enough not to have to take another vote. Also, it would seriously slow the game down as you can only have deputy elections AFTER all ministers have been decided on.


Appointments would speed things up. :)

At any rate, You are correct that I am envisioning a run-off election if somebody gets less than a substantial chunk of the vote. In a wide open electoral field the vote is likely to be split by two like minded candidates. The obvious example is below.

1> Jim (Anti-War Platform) = 31%
2> Frank (Anti-War Platform) = 29%
3> Bill (Pro-War Platform) = 40%

Bill isn't supported by the majority of the people but he is now the leader, worse yet he will spend his term bickering and fighting against his own deputy Jim that doesn't support the war that Bill is taking us to.

Obviously, this example is somewhat contrived, but it still illustrates my point of the danger of not having a unified leadership, and not having run-off elections.

I'm not even arguing for a majority but I think at least 45% of the people should support our leadership and that our leadership should be able to act decisively and without internal conflict.

Alphawolf
Nov 18, 2005, 06:02 PM
I'm not even arguing for a majority but I think at least 45% of the people should support our leadership and that our leadership should be able to act decisively and without internal conflict.

We aren't always going to be able to get 45%, but for an important office like President I think 33% and at least 10% a head of everyone else or 45% wouldn't be a bad idea. All the others should be winner takes all.

I understand your position about deputies. I think the rule concerning deputies shouldn't be in the Constitution so it's easy to change if we decide we don't like it. But I believe in most cases the deputy should be the runner, that way more vote are represented in the government.

But about the bickering, do deputies even have powers defined in a law or can the elected officer just ignore them?

-the Wolf

Furiey
Nov 18, 2005, 06:11 PM
Let the winner appoint his own Deputy.

A Minister needs to be able to work with his Deputy, rely on him to fill in any gaps, pick up dropped balls, and take over in times of need. What nobody needs is a Deputy who tries to backstab you and undermines you position. So no to automatically making your closest rival in the election your Deputy, yes to being able to choose your own. You want someone enthusiastic, who wants the job, and that could well be the runner up, but don't force it.

Alphawolf
Nov 18, 2005, 06:15 PM
A bit off topic but I would like an answer to this:
Should an Elected Office Holder be able to dismiss his deputy?

-the Wolf

RoboPig
Nov 18, 2005, 06:17 PM
oh! i have an idea! as furiey said the deputy should be a friend. so why not have two. in an election your name would appear with the deputy's on the ticket. you and the deputy would be voted in and the runner up would become your 2nd deputy

RoboPig
Nov 18, 2005, 06:18 PM
A bit off topic but I would like an answer to this:
Should an Elected Office Holder be able to dismiss his deputy?

-the Wolf

if you go with my idea then no

ravensfire
Nov 18, 2005, 06:25 PM
if you go with my idea then no

That's a darn good reason to not like that idea then.

-- Ravensfire

RoboPig
Nov 18, 2005, 06:31 PM
heres my idea properly explained:

Say that person A wants to run for president and is nominated. person C also wants to run for president and gets nominated. Now in the old way of election person A and B would run against each other and the winner would appoint his/her deputy/VP afterwards. in my idea person A would have to announce that if s/he wins then they would make person B their VP. Person C would have to say that person D will be their VP. Now if person C wins then person D becomes his/her VP. But person A would become his/her 2nd deputy so that the largest minority has a voice in government of each section as well. Person B would gain nothing. if the election is uncontested then the winner could appoint whoever they wanted as the 2 deputies.

Man'O'Action
Nov 18, 2005, 06:45 PM
Under the right honorable RoboPig's suggestion, we still have the problem of a black sheep in the family. The deputy, even though he is now one of two, would be either working crossways to his own moral compass or working crossways to that of the elected leader.

At anyrate if the idea of the 2nd place candidate is appealing to the winning candidate (or the public for that matter) it is an easy campaign promise to make to appoint your defeated opponent.

I would urge my colleauges and fellow citizens to reject the "loser wins" concept, and support run off elections.

RoboPig
Nov 18, 2005, 06:48 PM
we could make betrayal illegal in the constitution and Person A would only be advissing the minister on what to do. this way the 2nd deputy could do the turn chat under the specified orders while trying to balance the specific ministry's views.
many thanks for calling me right honorable

Alphawolf
Nov 18, 2005, 07:12 PM
I would urge my colleauges and fellow citizens to reject the "loser wins" concept, and support run off elections.

Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf

CivGeneral
Nov 18, 2005, 07:41 PM
Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf
Luckly thoes have been rare in the Demogame ;). But we still need an implemation for runoff election if they do happen.

Alphawolf
Nov 18, 2005, 09:08 PM
Luckly thoes have been rare in the Demogame ;). But we still need an implemation for runoff election if they do happen.

I was referring to runoffs for the elections of the Deputies, not a runoff in a general election.

-the Wolf

DaveShack
Nov 18, 2005, 09:46 PM
I still very strongly want runners-up to be deputies.

My reasoning is very simple. When I win elections, most of the time the deputy position goes unfilled, because I don't like to appoint people who won't take the trouble to at least apply for the job. At least a competitor for the position is someone we know wants the job.

Runners-up should be allowed to decline the deputy position or there may only be one candidate of course, so that means we still need a mechanism for appointments, but it sure would make life simpler if we had a designated choice.

Gloriana
Nov 19, 2005, 11:14 AM
I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation. There is then also no need to include a possibility for the minister to send home his deputy.

Slim_Chance
Nov 20, 2005, 02:50 PM
I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation.

I fully agree with you here. :goodjob:

An Old Man

Knightlancer
Nov 20, 2005, 03:37 PM
I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation. There is then also no need to include a possibility for the minister to send home his deputy.

Yup, you're right on here. :king:

-KL

CaliSurfer
Nov 20, 2005, 03:49 PM
I strongly believe it should be the runner-up.

Man'O'Action
Nov 21, 2005, 11:20 AM
Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf

As an clarification of my earlier statement, I do not support run-off elections for deputies. I support deputies by appointment. I do support run-off elections for races where the winner receives less than 40% of the vote.

I still very strongly want runners-up to be deputies.


I can certainly understand the sincerity of the beliefs of the gentleman from Arizona. However this does not change the truth of the situation.

Below we see my colleague's stated motivation for his support of loser-wins.

My reasoning is very simple. When I win elections, most of the time the deputy position goes unfilled, because I don't like to appoint people who won't take the trouble to at least apply for the job. At least a competitor for the position is someone we know wants the job.

Hidden in here is the very reason why appointment is the most flexible form of election of deputies. When the people elect the Honorable DaveShack to a position because of his proven track record of leadership he will be free to appoint the runner-up in his election to be his deputy as he see fits, and as should be his right as the duly elected leader.

The appointment method clearly provides both sides of this debate with the ability to govern as they see fit. Once again I urge all fellow citizens to support appointments and reject the well motivated but poorly designed loser-wins scheme.

Donovan Zoi
Nov 21, 2005, 09:47 PM
The appointment method clearly provides both sides of this debate with the ability to govern as they see fit. Once again I urge all fellow citizens to support appointments and reject the well motivated but poorly designed loser-wins scheme.

The people of the Warm Tummy Fuzzies are delighted with this loser wins scenario. It builds the emerging "Kumbaya" nature of the Democracy game, where for the sake of participation one can lose an election and still win! :love: You don't even have to sign up to the game to play anymore, and if you ask real nice (aka nominate yourself) you will even get a chance to play the actual game! :clap: How can I be so sure? Because with our lenient enforcement of savegame protocol, everyone gets voted in to be an honorary DP! [party]

We of the Warm Tummy Fuzzies embrace all that is happy and nice with this new Demogame, as there will be no hurt feelings for anyone anymore! So let's all hold hands and put the challenge of real government behind us. After all, that's hard work! :twitch:

So here's to a super-de-dooper DemoGame from the Warm Tummy Fuzzies! YAY! Never heard of us? Well maybe we are better known by our initials: WTF

Stilgar08
Nov 22, 2005, 01:47 AM
Donovan: I can see where your avatar comes from! ;) It shows your very soul! :lol: Great! :clap:

P.S.: To make this post not completely off-topic: Appointments: Yes!!! :D

How about a new poll with less options (maybe only the two major ones??) to ensure clearer results???

RegentMan
Nov 22, 2005, 08:51 AM
:lol: @ DZ!

Man'O'Action
Nov 22, 2005, 02:09 PM
How about a new poll with less options (maybe only the two major ones??) to ensure clearer results???

This is an excellent idea especially considering all the valuable debate that has happened. I too am in strong support of a new public poll with only the two leading options available.

Furthermore I'd like to echo the comments of Mr. Donovan Zoi, as I too believe an overriding sense of the warm tummy fuzzies is detrimental to not only the function of the game but the satisfaction of the players.

DaveShack
Nov 22, 2005, 06:12 PM
Elder Donovan Zoi may have a point that too little conflict might create too dull a game and result in lost interest. Unfortunately too much conflict might also cause that lost interest.

Back when deputies were the runners up, almost every election was contested. Why you ask? Because the 2nd place finisher was guaranteed to get something out of the attempt. Now when the winner gets to pick a friend, the loser often gets left out in the cold while someone who may not really want the position gets the nod for "old times sake". Will every deputy get appointed via cronyism? Of course not, but newcomers might not hang around forever trying to get noticed.

I can't tell you that this is why we have mostly uncontested elections in recent games. Some people might argue that there is something even more basic wrong with our society, others may say it wouldn't matter because it's really boredom with Civ3 which is pushing people away. Still others might say that the core of the DG was the RPG and without it the DG is too empty to get good participation.

In any event, I'll borrow an idea from a frequent opponent and say that "back in the good old days" we had runner-up deputies and the game was good. When we didn't have runner-up deputies, it just so happens the game was bad. Maybe we should go back to what was good. :D

Alphawolf
Nov 22, 2005, 09:25 PM
@Donovan: How long have you been waiting to use that. :D

@Stilgar08: I'll put another poll up now.

-the Wolf

Stilgar08
Nov 23, 2005, 03:54 PM
Elder Donovan Zoi may have a point that too little conflict might create too dull a game and result in lost interest. Unfortunately too much conflict might also cause that lost interest.

Back when deputies were the runners up, almost every election was contested. Why you ask? Because the 2nd place finisher was guaranteed to get something out of the attempt. Now when the winner gets to pick a friend, the loser often gets left out in the cold while someone who may not really want the position gets the nod for "old times sake". Will every deputy get appointed via cronyism? Of course not, but newcomers might not hang around forever trying to get noticed.

I can't tell you that this is why we have mostly uncontested elections in recent games. Some people might argue that there is something even more basic wrong with our society, others may say it wouldn't matter because it's really boredom with Civ3 which is pushing people away. Still others might say that the core of the DG was the RPG and without it the DG is too empty to get good participation.

In any event, I'll borrow an idea from a frequent opponent and say that "back in the good old days" we had runner-up deputies and the game was good. When we didn't have runner-up deputies, it just so happens the game was bad. Maybe we should go back to what was good. :D

Isn't it possible to stop the loss of motivation and participation by ensuring that secretaries, judges, the DP himself can only apply for a job every X-turns and only get it when nobody else wants the job (understandable? I'm tired, you know...) That way: you can even BREAK the apply the same people all the time!

Oh one more thing (maybe wrong thread here, but it just floated up ;) ):
Should we limit the positions one person at a time can have? E.g. the DP cannot have anoter job at the same time (should be the whole tri!) Deputies might get engaged as governors or Director of Intelligence, governors can only rule over x no. of cities max.???

@Stilgar08: I'll put another poll up now.

Great! Thanks! :)