here goes:
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.
what do you think?

2nd deputy? That would hardly have any power.

What does this idea do that appointments can't? All it does it appoint someone before the election is over, rather than after. Sure it'll work for the first term when there are 2 candiates + 2 deputies (4 people per position!). But when the game winds on, will we have enough people? 4 people * 8 positions (guess) = 32 people for one election. That is a mighty high number.

In short: this does nothing, and only makes it more complicated.

no, you would need 1 per election atleast. the other two would be appointed then.

Too complicated.

I wouldn't exactly agree with the wording of the poll choices, but must say this doesn't seem like it would be an improvement over either of the main alternatives. Add in that it's not exactly easy to understand and it doesn't seem worth pursuing at this time.

Too complicated.

i dont see whats so confusing

I said complicated not confusing.

Running with a Deputy was considered for the President/Vice President, but as soon as you do it for all the positions you take out half your candidates from running for election. So you have to have 4 people to even have a contested election (2 nominees, 1 deputy each - A,B,C & D). How many people do you think will be standing for election? You then not only have 1 but 2 deputies, a position that often ends up with nothing to do. Your first deputy is your running mate, your second is your top opponent. Why have 2 deputies? Far simpler just to appoint 1 and have done with it. This offers nothing over either of the options of appointed or runner up.

I also thought the poll options were not good, I wouldn't have said I totally hated it (a running mate MAY be appropriate for President/VP), neither would I have called it totally smelly, but it was the only option that allowed a No.

i see. so you liked it but didnt want the 2nd deputy

No.

Even ignoring the second deputy (half your idea), the only place I would even consider thinking about possibly looking at having a running mate (the other half of your idea) would be the President/VP.

i see. btw that is my idea without the 2nd deputy

I don't see the point of a second deputy when we can't agree on the first.

-KL

my deputy idea version 2 is now up for voting

you should change the wording of your polls, robopig: I don't hate the idea but I voted for that option since it's the only way to turn down your idea...
The wording of the "no -option" implies that you don't want people to say no (which obviously is true since it's your idea and nobody wants to get turned down ;) )

Just as a side note: I personally welcome and appreciate your efforts very much and please don't get demotivated if your idea doesn't get through, but word your polls more neutral! :)

Cheers, Stilgar