Since the other poll was so close, I'm opening this one it closes Monday, it is open, it's non-binding, and it has only three options.

-the Wolf

Thank you, Alphawolf. I'll open the floor.

The primary concern regarding the deputy law seems to be its effect on newcomers to the Democracy Game. Those in favor of runner-up deputies feel that going this route will give newcomers an open door to an office, even if they haven't yet gained the notoriety to carry an election.

This is a valid point, but to counter it I would like to ask the following of all self-proclaimed newcomers to this game:

Were you not to win an election, which outcome would you deem more fulfilling:

(a) Automatically receiving a position for coming in second place?
(b) Receiving recognition from a well known veteran of the game via appointment ?

The one thing I enjoy about the Demogame (and what has kept me hanging on for so long) is the ebb and flow of the citizenry. During the course of one game, the "founders" of a particular game may fade into the distance while newcomers will emerge midgame to keep the balance. And with this in mind, our veterans have always been quite gracious in giving credit to prolific new contributors where credit is due. And the strongest means to demonstrate this respect is with an appointment to an office.

All of you will just have to trust me on this one, as I have witnessed this phenomenon several times. I have been reciepient and benefactor of deputy appointments, and it builds much stronger bonds between players than will an automatic rubber stamp at the voting booth.

So let's return the Democracy Game to its organic roots, and entrust our citizens to do what is right. This one small step will provide a much more genuine DG experience than its alternative, which is something we should strive for with every law we write.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi

I do believe the honourable Donovan Zoi has good arguments, but I also believe there is slight flaw in the situation he creates:


Were you not to win an election, which outcome would you deem more fulfilling:
(a) Automatically receiving a position for coming in second place?
(b) Receiving recognition from a well known veteran of the game via appointment ?


In this situation, you assume that a newbie gets appointed by a veteran. While this is indeed very possible, it is not necessarily so. First I have to state that I believe newbies, like myself (if I may be so blunt), that want to actively participate in the game will make themselves heard and will not be overlooked. The situation above though, is ideal. It could also very well happen that a newbie becomes runner-up in an election, but a veteran gets the deputy appointment. What I’m trying to say is that appointing deputies works the other way around as well; neither system is ‘newbie friendlier’ than the other,

Now, I am not in favour of runners-up because I believe it is more or less prone to get newbies in positions of power, but because this is a game of democracy, and I believe that next to having separate elections for each deputy, having a runner-up become deputy is most democratic and reflective of the will of the people. Consider the following electoral outcome:

Candidate A: 40%
Candidate B: 30%
Candidate C: 25%
Candidate D: 5%

There is a 10% difference between the winner and the runner-up, so A wins the elections and becomes minister. Now he appoints D as his deputy, while the will of the people clearly shows that they prefer B over D. Is it democratic to go over the heads of the people and appoint D then? In the course of this discussion I’ve often heard the argument ‘otherwise, the loser wins’ in favour of appointing a deputy. In this case however, the even greater loser wins, and that can’t be right.

Reflect the will of the people, and let the runner-up become deputy.

The 10% doesn't matter. The people don't elect an officer-holder + deputy; they elect an office-holder (period).

‘newbie friendlier’ - I like that term.

What if the winner of the election just plan chooses the second place candidate as a matter of principle? Problem solved.

What if the winner of the election chooses someone other than your b, c, or d? Is this the downfall of Democracy because the will of the people was not followed in regards to election status? I think not. The candidate with the most votes won and it's his/her responsibility to run the Office to the best of their ability. They make the decision. They pay the penalty. Or they bask in the glory.

Firstly I'd like to thank our founding father and the Basileus of my party AlphaWolf for bringing this issue to its second vote.

I'd also like to thank my colleague Donovan Zoi for his insightful comments last evening. They were sharp and to the point as usual.

I’ve expressed my support for the appointment process many times and would urge my fellow citizens to support this fair and democratic process. It is important that all us vote for and support the appointment of deputies because this is the Democracy Game.

This form of democracy is where the citizens of the Demo Game invest power in a leader who they feel best represents their ideas. The loser-wins process that has been put forth by my fellow citizens would violate this trust by placing someone who does not enjoy the support of the majority into a position of responsibility. Being close to getting there only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades, and runner up is a fancy term for someone who lost.

I urge all citizens to reject the loser-wins scheme, and in the name of a representative democracy I urge all citizens to vote and vote for deputies to be appointed by the candidate that is supported by the voters.

Thank you for your time,
-Noob Citizen Man'O'Action

Being close to getting there only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades,

I do believe you have forgotten Nukes, sir. ;) :nuke:

I haven't voted since I have not yet decided, I didn't vote on the other poll either, so I would like to see more debate.

-the Wolf

I stick to my decision... Donovan Zoi: Respect! VERY good post!

In my eyes I still don't see any truth in the 'loser wins' argument. If a deputy is appointed, and it is one of the other candidates, SOME 'loser' 'wins' (see what I mean?). Whether the appointed deputy is the runner-up or no then apparently doesn't matter anymore...

What if the winner of the election just plan chooses the second place candidate as a matter of principle? Problem solved.
Then what's the use in appointing a deputy? This is making the runner-up deputy, which is exactly what I'm arguing for.

If a non-candidate is appointed, the will of the people isn't taken into account at all. Preferrably, if a majority is in favour of appointing deputies, I'd like to see this completely reflected then and have non-candidates chosen as deputies so the responsibility of the appointment lies completely with the minister, rather than electing the runner-up or one of the other candidates 'pro forma'.

In my eyes I still don't see any truth in the 'loser wins' argument. If a deputy is appointed, and it is one of the other candidates, SOME 'loser' 'wins' (see what I mean?). Whether the appointed deputy is the runner-up or no then apparently doesn't matter anymore...

Then what's the use in appointing a deputy? This is making the runner-up deputy, which is exactly what I'm arguing for.

If a non-candidate is appointed, the will of the people isn't taken into account at all. Preferrably, if a majority is in favour of appointing deputies, I'd like to see this completely reflected then and have non-candidates chosen as deputies so the responsibility of the appointment lies completely with the minister, rather than electing the runner-up or one of the other candidates 'pro forma'.
The Will of the People is overrated, we elect leaders to lead

This is how the u.s elctions started out, with the winner being prez, and the loser being VP. That was revoked, because NOTHING GOT DONE! if they were running against each other, and this so called will of the peeps was split, then they will want to go in different directions. The president needs a smart staff, but one that won't have there own agenda.

The Gospel of Chip
Praise be to Chip:goodjob:

Well I don't know much about US government, but I imagine the VP still has some power, whereas deputies don't. That's why I'm in favour of the runner-up.

Let's look at a hypothetical scenario using the point of view of a relative newcomer to the DG "Cleo". (Cleo is fictional in this scenario)

Cleo has been hanging around a month or two, hasn't really driven anything but has been interested in helping out by taking on some relatively menial task for one of the leaders. She notices that most of the leaders the past 2 terms have picked established members and/or long-time players to be deputy. There are several offices where there is just one candidate for the office.

With a pure "appointed deputy" approach, is there any incentive for Cleo to toss her name into any of the elections? She doesn't seem to stand a chance of winning, and it's pretty obvious that she won't be picked to be a deputy if everyone continues with their previous course of action.

With a "runner-up deputy" approach, by agreeing to be on the ballot she is rewarded by having at least a deputy slot in the bag as long as a 3rd candidate doesn't jump in. This is a big incentive to take the plunge into potential leadership.

What does the DG get out of this? More races will be contested if people know they get an inside track on the deputy position by running. Look at the election records of the Civ3 demogames -- we had a lot more contested races in the early DGs when runners-up became the deputies automatically, and the number of contested races has declined since we started letting the winner choose anyone. Contested elections spice things up, even if one of the candidates has a huge advantage. We need there to be at least two candidates for every position for the DemoGame to be a success, and anything we can do to improve our chances is worth trying.

Is this all we need to do? Of course not, it would also be a fairly big improvement to actually give the deputies jobs. But it should be a step in the right direction.

The runner up in the elections (second placer) should be the one to be the deputy.

All those who oppose deputy appointment seem to have failed to realize that there is nothing to prevent the winning candicate from appointing the runner-up as his deputy.

In my opinion, the candidate should decide for himself if he prefer a certain deputy or if he wants the runner-up to be his deputy. Or course, if he wants to appoint a deputy himself he has to announce it prior to the vote. He could also choose to announce something like, "If I win, I'll appoint XYZ as the deputy, unless the runner-up gets more than 70% of votes as I get, in which case he will be appointed."

I simply believe many people would be willing to appoint the runner-up as their deputies any way, especially if we make it the recommended option. And those who don't want to appoint the runner-up, I believe they have good reasons for their own deputy candidate.

The argument for the runner-up system is strong in my book - it certainly helps get new players involved. I hate to ask - is that the best thing? These may be new, untested citizens coming to a new office that they don't understand. I'd rather that an elected official, in order to run his office to the best of the ability, have the power to appoint his own deputy.

Besides, we're only considering one side of the electoral coin. What about the hotly contested races? Once in a rare while when two citizens with diametrically opposed views come to the polls, the electoral fireworks will be intersting to watch, but what about when the election is over? Is our nation really run best by two people who may hate one another's respective guts and other viscera?

Becoming a deputy is not only way to really enter this game and its government, anyway. For better or for worse (and I suspect there are some who would argue both ;)), I started off as an appointed governor to a newly-created province. Active participation, contribution, etc., are all necessary to become a 'veteran' - there's no need to rely on runner-up prizes to introduce people to the demogame.

Another positive aspect of the appointment process is that it allows more freedom for the winning candidate, and in essence has the potential to turn the deputy selection process into a campaign issue. Let me explain.

Even though it looks like the "runner-up" method is losing this round, you can rest assured that all the citizens that voted for it here will continue to believe in this system. Therefore, there is nothing stopping them from asking the following question of electoral candidates:

If elected, will you select your runner-up to be your deputy?

For this reason, we need to leave things like this open for interpretation. If we force these type of minor decisions for our candidates, it will take some of the nuance out of the elections. Deputy appointments will allow for more debate, and more debate fosters a stronger democracy.

What about the hotly contested races? Once in a rare while when two citizens with diametrically opposed views come to the polls, the electoral fireworks will be intersting to watch, but what about when the election is over? Is our nation really run best by two people who may hate one another's respective guts and other viscera?

Once again I repeat my argument that deputies will have an advisory role as it seems so far. If the minister and his deputy disagree with each other, the minister is still the one to make the decisions (he didn't win the elections for nothing), he doesn't need to go into discussion with his deputy. It can even work very enlightening to hear the opinion/advice from an opposite point of view. As the minister doesn't have to argue his case, he can just take this advice and pick up possible positive points (notice the alliteration?) to use in his plans, or completely disregard his deputy's advice...


Even though it looks like the "runner-up" method is losing this round, you can rest assured that all the citizens that voted for it here will continue to believe in this system. Therefore, there is nothing stopping them from asking the following question of electoral candidates:

If elected, will you select your runner-up to be your deputy?


In case the appointment process wins I will gladly abide by the will of the majority (as if I have a choice.. hehe), but you speak the truth and the question quoted will most certainly be asked. It would be greatly appreciated if the default appointee is the runner-up, unless the elected candidate decides otherwise.

Another concern I have is winning an election but not being allowed to appoint the runner-up as deputy because someone else picks that person first. Can we put in something giving the winner of an election the right to choose the 2nd place before anyone else is allowed to, maybe within the 24 hours following the election only?

DaveShack, what if we just have a period of say 1 or 2 days after the election where people can ask people to become deputy - that way, whomever it is can decide which office they want, rather than whichever office contacted them first.

Your rule is fine too ...

I personally think the runner up should be deputy.

I personally think the runner up should be deputy.
I was about to post when I saw that you had said the same thing, so I second this.

@DvaeShack: Why do you need rules for such things? Try talking to one another. If you plan on winning an election and want the runner up as your deputy then tell him or her that before the election. If they want the job then they'll refuse any other offers that come along.

BTW, I voted for appointment over runner up. I lost an election back in DG1 (Civ III) and became Deputy Domestic Advisor as runner up. The Domestic Advisor and I held very different outlooks on what the Domestic Department should do and while Domestic Advisor was away I did things my way. When he returned he was not happy. Fortunately, since he was also VP he became President upon the latter's resignation and I got to run Domestic as I saw fit. :) Anyway, the moral of the story is when there is a contested election due to ideological differences, do you really want the leader of the opposition as deputy?

There is a much simpler method that I've suggested from time to time in the Civ III demogames. If you're going to have deputies then elect them together with the leader, like we do when we vote for president/vice president in the US. Let the candidate for office pick his or her own running mate before the election and then we can vote for the ticket we like best. Then we have leaders and deputies in place when the election is over and we'll know the two are compatable.

Only a few more hours of voting left. I'm pretty sure I'm way too excited about an "information-only, non-binding" poll. :lol:

I was convinced to vote for appointment mainly by your arguement:

BTW, I voted for appointment over runner up. I lost an election back in DG1 (Civ III) and became Deputy Domestic Advisor as runner up. The Domestic Advisor and I held very different outlooks on what the Domestic Department should do and while Domestic Advisor was away I did things my way. When he returned he was not happy. Fortunately, since he was also VP he became President upon the latter's resignation and I got to run Domestic as I saw fit. :) Anyway, the moral of the story is when there is a contested election due to ideological differences, do you really want the leader of the opposition as deputy?

There is a much simpler method that I've suggested from time to time in the Civ III demogames. If you're going to have deputies then elect them together with the leader, like we do when we vote for president/vice president in the US. Let the candidate for office pick his or her own running mate before the election and then we can vote for the ticket we like best. Then we have leaders and deputies in place when the election is over and we'll know the two are compatable.

This one more or less convinced me because it deals with an actual situation and not a hypothetical one.

-the Wolf