Please vote Ravensfire and Cyc for Chief Justice.

Polls will close on January 1st 00:00 GMT

As demonstrated in the campaign thread, the election for Chief Justice provides an unparalled opportunity for two highly qualified candidates for this critical position. Both Cyc and myself are highly qualified candidates that have been significantly involved in the process of creating the DG4 ruleset.

I'm a bit partial (of course :D ), but vote Ravensfire for Chief Justice. I've got a very strong knowledge of the ruleset, integrety and an overwhelming belief in the power of this group of people, of this group of friends. The Judiciary is there to help everyone understands the rules, resolve any questions about the rules, and make sure everyone follows the rules.

My first thought any time a possible problem is brought to be is to fix the harm, correct the problem and move with the game, not to immediately punish. We are friends here - and problems do develop within groups. As Chief Justice, my job is to help resolve those problems without harming the underlying friendship.

Cyc - this looks to be an excellent race. I end this post confident that regardless of the result, the Judiciary will be in great hands!

Vote for Ravensfire
-- Ravensfire

Gentlemen. Court is now in session. Please be seated. The evidence has been presented and recorded for your examination. Please take your time in weighing the testimonies as a crucial balance of power may well rest on your vote. Both Ravensfire and I would both be very pleased to serve the nation. It is now up to you to see that Justice prevails.

Well, it is currently 5-5. I'm putting my money on.....

Ravenfire!

I voted for ravensfire.

Cyc got my vote, although Raven is an excellent candidate. This is one of the hardest of the choice to make.

Considering how far we have come in finalizing our legal system and how much of that process still remains, I consider this position one of the most important for this term.

I will not attempt to pretend to be familiar with all of ravensfire's positions with respect to the law and it's interpretation, but I do strongly disagree with his preference for closed turn chats.

I also know that Cyc has repeatedly shown a preference for bestowing more power with the citizenry and holding officials accountable for their actions at any time during their term in office. I therefore strongly endorse Cyc for this position and encourage everyone to cast their vote for him.

yer i went with Cyc mainly because of forty's reasons

With respect to 40J's opinion,

I am a person of strong convictions - I make my points and stand by them. Once a decision has been made, I have, and will continue, support that decision. As an example, in spite of the turn-chat decision not going the direction I prefer, I voted to ratify that Article. Why - because the citizens made the choice.

As much as anyone, I have always stood up for the rights of all citizens, including those who participate soley through the forums. I have always respected and supported the laws, working within them to make changes. I have always demanded from the elected leaders that they honor the duties and responsibilities they accepted when elected to office. Others have not been able to do that, putting personal preference over the needs of all citizens.

The rights of citizens should not be goverened by the whims of the majority, but by the needs of all. So long as a law violates no law above it, as a member of the Judiciary I would be duty-bound to accept, support and defend that law. Only if there is a conflict with a higher law should a law passed by the citizens be struck down.

My thanks to all for your consideration and support!
-- Ravensfire

This was the toughest choice of all the polls, but I voted for Cyc.

As an additional note, let me state that regardless of the result of this election, the tragic result is that a highly skilled, qualified, and deserving candidate for the bench will be denied.

Hopefully, the new election laws will be ratified (hint, hint - go vote people!) and will govern next term!

This is a great race Cyc!

-- Ravensfire

People, there is still time to vote. If you need additional information about the candidates, be sure to read the Nomination thread for the Chief Justice (below on this page). Keep the power with the People, not the Executive elite. Vote for Cyc.

This is one of the toughest decisions I have ever had to make, between two of our most dedicated citizens.

However, Ravensfire has a bit more judicial experience, and has recently put forth the most effort in writing our current ruleset. As a matter of fact, if it weren't for Ravensfire, we would be nowheres near close to furnishing a workable ruleset. I am surprised that this extra effort is not being rewarded in the polls here, but then again most of the recent discussion has only been between Ravensfire and Cyc so I am not sure how many citizens have even noticed. ;)

Please vote Ravensfire.

ooh, a tie ;) I wonder who will win this one?

Still 40 hours to go and the contestants are neck-on-neck. Who will pull this off? It seems Ravensfire's jockey has not pushed Ravensfire to the limit allowing Cyc's jockey to get the tremendous stallion back in the race only to leave him behind on the last bit, or has Ravensfire started too quickly and is running on his last legs ? Cyc still seems fit, but Ravensfire apparently also has some reserves left.

As they turn the corner for the last straight it's Ravensfire, no it's Cyc, no it's ... Too close to call. The one with the best stamina will win this.

Good luck to both of them.

Woot! Go Cyc!

I voted for Cyc. Nothing against Raven at all. Over time since DG1 I have grown to trust the judgement of Cyc, even during times I have disagreed with him, which is rare, but in all cases, I find him to be extremely dedicated to the game, able to clearly express his ideas, and not afraid to do the right thing.

I using someone else's computer and can't get my votes to register. I'm hoping I'll still be able to vote tomorrow. :(

Originally posted by donsig
I using someone else's computer and can't get my votes to register. I'm hoping I'll still be able to vote tomorrow. :(

I have the same problem when using my grandmother's computer. Try voting through Internet Explorer, if you weren't already.

Thank you Bill. I really appreciate your support. With words like that coming from a person who I believe was the strongest Judiciary influence in Demogame history, I feel that I have not only done my best in running for this office, but in safegaurding the game also. Thanks again.

Good luck in getting your votes registered, donsig. :thumbsup:

ATTENTION ALL CITIZENS

Decisions are being made RIGHT NOW that will affect the Demogame. Specifically, the discussion about the ruleset is entering it's final stage. All sections of the Constitution have been ratified. Multiple sections of the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards are being ratified right now, the others are currently being discussed.

This is your chance to have a strong influence on the game. Please, vote in the ratification polls (after reading through the discussion thread!), and stop by the discussion threads of the open issues. We're a mostly (don't start will some of my twitchy subjects! :lol: ) friendly bunch. Ask your questions in the relevant threads, or bounce over to either of the Judicial nomination threads - most of the active ruleset authors are running for one Judicial office or another!.

Thanks!
-- Ravensfire

And it's tied once again! Only this time, the voter neglected to claim which candidate he voted for. Hmmm.

Originally posted by Cyc
And it's tied once again! Only this time, the voter neglected to claim which candidate he voted for. Hmmm.

Well, you were up one, so that kinda narrows it down.

I'm loving this - just loving it!

Hey Cyc, how's about we start a debate in the nomination thread? You ask a question - I'll answer it, then ask you one in return. Interested? I've got a team meeting, so that's why I suggested you start...

-- Ravensfire

Originally posted by ravensfire


Well, you were up one, so that kinda narrows it down.

-- Ravensfire

:lol: :lol: That's pretty funny. I really wasn't searching for the candidate that person voted for...I wanted to know who voted. :lol: :lol:

16-16, wow this really brings back memories of previous elections.

Originally posted by Cyc


:lol: :lol: That's pretty funny. I really wasn't searching for the candidate that person voted for...I wanted to know who voted. :lol: :lol:

Oh that. UImmm, Bob the Joker's Goon! (Batman movie reference)

-- Ravensfire

Uh-oh! Ravensfire take the lead again! By another anonymous poster, no less...

Cyc- just because I sorta talked to him once in the chatroom ;)

Go Cyc :).

Xen and Civanator! What an unexpected suprise. Thank you both very much for your votes. You have brought me back into a tie with Ravensfire.

:sad: Ravensfire is one tough opponent to beat. :hammer: But I'm workin' on it.

Go Cyc

dont worry Cyc- we're here to support ya!

Tied and less than four hours to go! This is intense.

What are we going to do if they are still tied at 00:00 GMT ? A cagefight ? ;)

I assume we'd do a runoff...let's hope that nobody files a PI while the election is still ongoing. ;)

Or, we could follow your suggestion and do a donsig vs. DZ-style cage fight, but it would probably last over about three DG's. ;)

Or do a run off including the top 2 or 3 from the AJ poll and pick the top 3. That way we would get the choice to keep both of them - a bit hard though if one of the AJ winners loses their place as a result!

I say just make me cheif justice if its a tie, and be done with it ;)

20-20

Congrats to both.

A run off election assumes that there were more choices in the first one. It would be a travesty just to repeat the election hoping that someone forgets to vote or changes their mind.

A runoff doesn't seem right here. But we need a CJ fast. Have you got any suggestions ?

What do the books say about the President having a decisive vote in polls ? And do they include Election polls ?

Although there is no legal basis for this opinion, would it be so wrong to let them hold the office jointly?

Well, there would be 2 CJ's and 2 AJ's. ;)

This election will require a runoff; I'll post it soon.

How do you justify a run off though?
As I have said a run off assumes that there were more than 2 candidates to start with.

Well, it's first of all what we've always done (not a very good justificaton, I know), but it is (I believe) a proposed part of the CoS, so it would make the most sense to hold it. If that election also ties, then we're up a creek; we could either decide it with another runoff, a randomization (such as a coin flip, done by moderators), or we could find out some way for them to jointly hold office.

But for this run off to be sucessful we are hoping that either someone forgets to vote or changes their mind. That is hardly fair to either the candidates or the electorate.
I am only speaking from the pov of a citizen but I think we should find a way to allow them to hold office jointly but to only have one opinion.

Peri, for any other office I would disagree, but not for CJ. In important RL courtcases there are also multiple judges. And a judge is what the CJ can be compared with.

Do the books allow this ?

The books did not plan for this situation

I agree that it would be unfair to the candidates. However, I must turn your attention to the Code of Laws:

CoL.X.V.A states that "Should more than one citizen tie with the highest totals, a run-off election lasting 2 days shall be immediately posted listing only the tied citizens."

This means that regardless of how many candidates there were to start, there still has to be a runoff election. Note: This has not been ratified, but is set to be ratified tomorrow if the current voting pattern continues.

CoL.E.1 sates that "The judiciary is comprised of three members, the Chief Justice, and 2 Associate Justices."

This means that there cannot be two Chief Justices, simple as that. This has already been ratified.

Congrats to both Ravensfire and Cyc. As the polls have shown you are both great candidates for this position. I hope we can come up with a good way to settle this situation.

I agree with you but no one foresaw this current situation. It is difficult to apply laws that werent written to deal with this.

Hehe...both candidates pick a number between 1 and 10. ;)

20/20. Hmmm. The People have perfect vision. Ravensfire would make an excellent CJ. I would certainly put my heart and experience into fulfilling the responsiblities of the Office.

Personally, having both Ravensfire and myself on the Judicial Bench makes the most sense. According to the Legislation we have passed for DGIV, there should have only been one Justice poll. The top three vote getters were the Justices, with the top vote getter becoming Chief Justice. So to me this would be the best way to go. It removes all doubt. The winner of the AJ election would be brought on to fill the last position.

Either way, Ravensfire, I congratulate you on a spectacular election race. This makes the first election I have bid for that I have not won in four Demogames. You are a worthy opponent.

Here is CoS section III.D.iv, which will be ratified in less than 12 hours, pertaining specifically to the Judiciary:

iv. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
the Chief Justice.

Of course, this assumes that there would be only one thread for the Judicial elections, when in reality there were two (the nominations were posted before this was even a proposed section of the CoS). This does create a special case; I think it would be best to default to a runoff election as has been done in many cases (including two person tied elections like this one), and figure out something to do in case that one also ties.

Cyc, Ravensfire I've PM-ed you on this delicate situation. (CC The new Associate Justice Peri)

I agree that we should stick to our procedure. I also agree with Peri that it doesn't seem quite right as any difference in the result is because someone changed their mind or forgets/chooses not to vote. But in times of "crisis" we need to fall back on our coded laws and follow them until there are no more laws to follow.

Originally posted by Cyc

Personally, having both Ravensfire and myself on the Judicial Bench makes the most sense. According to the Legislation we have passed for DGIV, there should have only been one Justice poll. The top three vote getters were the Justices, with the top vote getter becoming Chief Justice. So to me this would be the best way to go. It removes all doubt. The winner of the AJ election would be brought on to fill the last position.


Good idea but there is a flaw. Both of you received 20 votes but in a field of 2. Boots and I received our votes in a field of 5. We can't amalgamate the polls now without causing a whole heap of unwanted problems.
I personally think the Judiciary would be better off if you both served but spoke with one voice. Although there is no legal basis for this proposal.

A run off election is just ducking the issue and hope it goes away.
We should follow the law but we did not write it with this situation in mind. Therfore we should adapt to the situation rather than trying to fit a square peg in a round hole.

Before we all go off on a tantrum, we should remember that this elections polling system was fairly messed up for the Judiciary. The legislation concerning this election polling is CoS Section Y, which I have quoted below:

III. Polling
A. Polling threads shall be created by the Election Office in the main forum.
B. Only accepted nominations shall be listed in the Election poll.
C. The poll shall list the the nominees and abstain.
D. Each office shall have its own poll.
1. Judiciary exceptions:
i. There shall be only 1 poll for the Judiciary branch.
ii. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
iii. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate
Justices.
iv. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
the Chief Justice.
v. Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees
tied for that position shall be listed in the run-off.
2. At-Large Governors
i. There shall be only one poll for all At-Large Governor positions.
ii. The top X candidates, where X is the number of At-Large Governor
positions for the election cycle, shall be the At-Large Governors
iii. Should a tie exist between two or more citizens for the final
At-Large Governor position, a run-off poll listing only those
citizens shall be posted. This poll shall last for 2 days.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Having this legislation pass tomorrow morning, it should be used now as a guiding factor in resolving the mess that was started days ago. When this legislation passes, this election poll will become illegal.

I think the fairest is to change the laws to have this office for 2. But to prevent future events like this one we need to change the laws. Perhaps give the senate / president / someone else a decisive vote in case an election between 2 ends equally.

We can ask the mods to check if the candidates received illegal (unregistered citizens) votes and subtract them. I'll PM DZ for this.

This is not retroactive though is it. We could all resign and submit to a new election for the judiciary couldn't we?

The main reason that I would advocate the runoff election is that there is the most legal basis for it as a way to break the tie. However, perhaps we can find some way for it to work out with both Ravensfire and Cyc as co-CJ's. There is nothing specifically stated in the laws that we can't have co-leaders, so I would be willing to try this out if a good proposal can be made on that.

As the laws assume 1 election for the Judiciary not 2, another possibility might be to declare both the CJ and AJ elections invalid and rerun them as 1.

All candidates would need to withdraw in order to precipitate a new election.

Before we jump to conclusions; I've asked DZ to check whether illegal votes were cast. If so, there is most likely no tie anymore.

And I'd also like to hear Ravensfire's Pov.

Also, I would like to point out that this election ended before the CoS section is ratified, and therefore should be considered to have been ratified ex post facto for this poll, and thus not apply.

I have PMed Thunderfall regarding the DLs and will put some thought into a solution here.

I will be back later today.

Bootstoots, this issue or this problem, in my eyes, is not about me. It's about doing the right thing. Speeding along with a run-off poll and anouncing Associate Judges before any conclusions have been made is not the right thing. To me this would just be another error by the Election Office.

CoS Section Y is a Standard for Demogame IV. This legislation was drafted in its final form before Nominations were drawn up. Just because it was held up until the end of the rule making process, as a lot of things were, unnecessarily, doesn't mean it's not an effective Standard for Demogame 4 if ratified. The Standard governs our election process and should be adhered to. Especially now, as we are to hold re-elections. CoS Section Y.III.D.1 explains how elections for the Judiciary are to be carried out. This Standard should be followed from here on out.

As I said before, this is not about me. If I had lost the election, I would have congratulated Ravensfire and walked away. Even though the Judiciary Election process was all wrong and begged correction, I would have walked away from this. But as there was a tie between the Chief Justice candidates (as set up by the Election Office), and a new Election poll needs to be run, we should NOT continue using the same incorrect manner. It is now time to clean this mess up and do it the right way. Set up a new Nomination thread for the Judicial Branch. Let it run for 2 days. When it closes, run an Election thread for the Judiciary. Then just follow the Standard covering the Election. No judgment call required.


__________________

in my opinion, this has the good effect of pointing out a snag in the old law system- a snag which must be ammended, in the following manner-

no election can take place unless it has 3 candidates

as for the current snag, I still think you just appoint me, and be done with it :p

Xen,

I agree that this situation needs to be addressed in our code. However your solution to require 3 candidates is not viable. A better alternative would to have the current Senate vote to decide the tie. In the case of a 1st term election, we would use the newly elected Senate.

Edit: see my proposal (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=73763)

Citizens,

Lend me your ear!

We find ourselves in a problem of our own making, caused by both our haste and our lack of it. We all wanted to start DG4 in '04, and set outselves the objective of begining in January.

That became the deadline for passing our ruleset. We didn't make it. If we were to start the game as planned, elections had to be held according to a certain time schedule. When the nominations were posted, all we had was a list of the offices. Regardless of how finalized the Election laws were, they were not polled and ratified. Thus, they didn't count. We held elections without the basis for them. Unfortunately, the only position where a tie could cause an issue, had a tie.

As many have stated, this situation CANNOT happen if the election laws are followed. We currently have 2 Associate Justices - Peri and Boots. We have two individuals tied for Chief Justice - Cyc and me. Normally, we will have three Justices, just a question of who the CJ is. In fact, the only possible way to have a similar problem would be to have the top four candidates have the same number of votes.

I digress though. A simple answer to this problem is to follow the law and hold a run-off between Cyc and myself. Others have suggested sharing (one voice, one vote) - let's not try that, please? Cyc and I have strong opinions about various matters.

He and I are discussing some options for this matter. Given the unusual circumstances, I request that we be allowed to come to a solution, and propose it at that point in time.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

I am glad that you will come to a compromise and avoid another election.

That was what I was hoping for Raven.

Congratulations to both candidates, you both belong on the bench, and it is fitting that this result would point out the flaw in the CJ / AJ elections.

By all means, please proceed (quickly) with deciding between yourselves how this should be handled, and placing that proposal before the people for comment.

The right solution is not even available, given the forum polling options we can choose from. What we really need is a multiple choice poll which is "vote for at most 3" with all of the judiciary candidates included. A standard poll results in the spectre that two candidates could get all of the votes for the CJ position, and only one AJ is selected.

Originally posted by DaveShack
The right solution is not even available, given the forum polling options we can choose from. What we really need is a multiple choice poll which is "vote for at most 3" with all of the judiciary candidates included. A standard poll results in the spectre that two candidates could get all of the votes for the CJ position, and only one AJ is selected.

DaveShack,

It is available, kind of. It would have to be a cumulative voting deal though, and that introduces it's own problems. Basically, create three Judiciary polls, each listing all candidates. Total the results of all of them, and you've got your results! As I said, it does mean cumulative voting, which could result in some interesting elections.

I think that process would be better than a single election.

-- Ravensfire

Sorry, DaveShack. A multiple choice election poll is the worst thing we could possibly turn to in a situation like this. The chances of only two candidates getting all the votes in an election with 4 or 5 candidates in these forums is astronomical. It would never happen. 1 person = 1 vote.

I have read the proposed plans for handling this situation, to include "sharing" of office responsibilities. I do not see how these can work. On the other hand Ravensfire's statement that we should follow the law and have a run-off is erroneous also. That "run-off" situation was set in all the candidates being in the same election poll. They were not, as the Judicial Elections were put up in an incorrect manner (not once, but twice). Unfortunately there was a tie, which complicated matters. As we now have newly ratified Election Standards in the CoS, they should be followed. Which means starting from scratch (Nominations). Anything else would be contrary to one of the supporting books of the Constitution.

i propose one of you takes 1st term, and another takes 2nd. it is too late to repoll, and i'm sure oneof you probably feels the second half would work better for your schedules, another option would be to split the term.

I feel so wierd right now, i was on vacation, and that computer wouldn't let me answer a poll for some reason(any poll, not just DMGIV) , when i got home, i rushed to cast my vote, to find thanks to me the vote was tied, 20 vs. 20, and now i feel like thanks to me, democracy has failed :lol: lol, he...uhhhhhhh...errrrr,ummm, oh boy do i feal wierd; you cam now comense blaming me (i did not look at the result before voting, i chose the canadate i thought best, this was not intentional)

Would it make sense to poll all the available options and have the citizens vote on which one they feel is most appropriate for this poll?

Originally posted by Bootstoots
Would it make sense to poll all the available options and have the citizens vote on which one they feel is most appropriate for this poll?

What your asking is:

Should we allow not only the Election Office to post a poll about an election that has illegal Options in it, but also should we allow the citizens the opportunity to vote for illegal election methods.

I can see how the Election Office could produce a poll like this, but I refuse to let the citizens of Fanatica purposely vote for illegal methods.

Based on real life examples as well as what I have read concerning elections in our laws, it seems to me that there are only two legal options to resolve this matter: One candidate concedes the election.
A run-off election is held to determine a winner.
Sharing the office is unprecedented and as it turns out unhelpful as the CJ is essentially the tie-breaking vote in judicial matters (something that cannot be done if there are two of them).

Allowing the President or any other officer and/or branch of government to appoint one candidate as the winner should be illegal, if it is not already. This practice is ripe with disaster.

Postponing one candidate's term in office is most certainly against the rules as there is no provision for officer-elect positions in which positions are decided a term in advance. Furthermore, it assumes that one of the individuals even wishes to hold office next term, which is no simple assumption.

Finally, any concern about citizens forgetting to vote and/or changing votes is moot. Run-off elections occur regularly and it remains the citizens' responsibility to cast their votes in that election as they see fit at that time (whether it is the same vote or not). Furthermore, the government has no obligation to ensure that every citizen that participated in the initial election does so in the run-off. All citizens are aware of the possibility of run-off elections and it is up to them to take part in them if they occur.

If neither candidate wishes to concede the race to the other, then we must initiate a run-off election as soon as possible. The nation needs a Chief Justice, and we are on the clock.

PS. This "quagmire" was (and still remains) an excellent opportunity for these candidates to display their skills as CJ by analyzing the rules that exist and post a "ruling" on what the proper procedure should be. I'm a little disappointed that neither candidate has done so (unless I've missed it while skimming over the 2 pages of today's posts - which, if I have, then I apologize).

PSS. Ok. I just got ripped by Cyc who pointed out to me that he did reference a standard in the CoS only a few posts before mine, so I guess my eyes are still a bit blurred from the festivities last night. My sincerest apologies Cyc.

Double post! :blush:

Originally posted by FortyJ
PS. This "quagmire" was (and still remains) an excellent opportunity for these candidates to display their skills as CJ by analyzing the rules that exist and post a "ruling" on what the proper procedure should be. I'm a little disappointed that neither candidate has done so (unless I've missed it while skimming over the 2 pages of today's posts - which, if I have, then I apologize).

I have been doing that for the last page FortyJ. I have been quoting or referring to Section Y of the CoS in several posts, as it is the most relevant here. This Section governs the Election process and in particular the processes for the Judiciary and the Senate/Governors. It seems the Election Office was able to fully grasp the concept for the Governors, but completely ignored the concept for the Judiciary.

I can post a link to the Section if that will help. :)

Link to CoS Section Y (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=73286)

[B]EDIT:Apology accepted FortyJ ;)

Cyc, your method of resolving this is illegal too. Elections and nominations must be held on specific days, as the CoL states here:
IV. Elections shall be conducted according to the following scheduled:
A. Nominations shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run
until the election polls are posted.
B. Debates shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run until
the election polls close.
C. Election polls shall start 4 days before the end of the month and run
for 3 days.
The Code of Laws is considered to be of more weight than the Code of Standards, therefore, this would make your proposed method of resolving it even worse than the problem, legally. I feel strongly that we must post a runoff poll, as ordained in X.V.A for all tied elections:
V. The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner
of that election.
A. Should more than one citizen tie with the highest totals, a run-off
election lasting 2 days shall be immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.

Cyc, the runoff election seems like the most valid way of doing this, from what I can tell from the recently passed legislation. Unless you can come up with how your method is legally justifiable, I will post a runoff poll sometime within the next 24 hours.

Originally posted by ravensfire

It is available, kind of. It would have to be a cumulative voting deal though, and that introduces it's own problems. Basically, create three Judiciary polls, each listing all candidates. Total the results of all of them, and you've got your results! As I said, it does mean cumulative voting, which could result in some interesting elections.


This is very similar to the voting method suggested in some U.S. locations to deal with minority representation, for example in city councils. Instead of each candidate running for a separate seat, all of the candidates are running for all of the seats at large. Each voter is allowed to vote once for each "seat", and has the option of voting for the same person n times.

I believe we need to either follow the current 3 books (if these sections have been ratified) or change the law first to accomodate alternative polling methods. We'll be so late into the term if we try to change the law that it does not make sense to do that for the 1st term.

I will offer a specific recommendation, probably for use in later terms only:

Hold nominations for CJ and AJ separately. The CJ candidates go into a separate CJ-only poll. Include the CJ candidates in two identical AJ polls along with the AJ candidates. The winner of the CJ poll becomes CJ, and the AJ offices are filled using totals across all the polls. Admittedly, this gives losing CJ candidates an advantage over AJ-only candidates, but at least it keeps us from getting a CJ who didn't really want that office.

Originally posted by Cyc
Sorry, DaveShack. A multiple choice election poll is the worst thing we could possibly turn to in a situation like this.

We can just disagree on this part for now, there is no time to fix it for term 1 anyway. I'd be interested in a more lengtly debate at another time... ;)


They were not, as the Judicial Elections were put up in an incorrect manner (not once, but twice). Unfortunately there was a tie, which complicated matters. As we now have newly ratified Election Standards in the CoS, they should be followed. Which means starting from scratch (Nominations). Anything else would be contrary to one of the supporting books of the Constitution.

I have to agree that the only sane alternative is to declare the entire judicial department election as invalid, and start afresh. A bandaid is the last thing in the world we need, especially in this critical department. An abbreviated schedule would be a must, maybe 24 hours for noms and 48 for the election polls.

Bootstoots, those generic passages you have quoted deal with election concepts as a whole. IF they Election Office had run the Elections that were legal, thos would hold some weight. But the elections weren't performed legally.

Section Y specifically states the procedure to use in the Judicial Election process. No generic terms. It says Judiciary. One can not be confused by that. Section Yis much more appropriate legislation for an occurance such as this.

Had the elections been handled properly, then your advise would be more applicable.

:rotfl:

So... according to our new ruleset, the elections we just held for the judiciary branch of our government were illegal. This is nothing short of a comedy of errors.

Edit: I guess it's only fair to acknowledge that the rules were not ratified until the elections had already begun.

Originally posted by Cyc
Bootstoots, those generic passages you have quoted deal with election concepts as a whole. IF they Election Office had run the Elections that were legal, thos would hols some weight. But the elections weren't performed legally.

Section Y specifically states the procedure to use in the Judicial Election process. No generic terms. It says Judicial. One can not be confused by that. Section Yis much more appropriate legislation for an occurance such as this.

Had the elections been handled properly, then your advise would be more applicable. Do you see my point that if you were to hold these elections as you have proposed, that they would be illegal just the same as the original ones? The sections that I quoted were not generic; in fact, they deal very specifically with the times that the elections are to be held and what process should be used to break ties in the event that they should occur. The fact that the original elections were done improperly is irrelevant as the Code of Laws by nature overrides them and that the process for breaking ties involves a runoff between first place candidates as defined by CoS Y.III.1.iv. It is impossible to legally hold new Judicial elections because it violates the Code of Laws very clearly and unmistakeably. A runoff, despite the fact that the election preceding it is technically illegal, seems to be the best possible action under the law.

EDIT: This post isn't entirely serious because the laws and standards behind this were not even ratified before the elections closed, see next post.

Originally posted by FortyJ
Edit: I guess it's only fair to acknowledge that the rules were not ratified until the elections had already begun. And the elections were over before they were ratified, a point that I have been trying to make all along. I don't see how these rules should apply to the elections in the first place as they were ratified after the elections were over. That would be like going back to Term 3 of last DG and rerunning donsig's infamous PI because the threadbare CoL ratified after the fact had different PI procedures. These laws do not even apply to this election in the first place.

BTW, this is contradictory to my previous post; in that one I was merely pointing out the flaws in Cyc's reasoning even if the laws were valid.

Boots, the laws were in the process of being written and or ratified to be used in the DGIV game. Just because the Election Office failed to keep current with the new legislatiuon is not my fault.

It seems to me you want to avoid the issue of legality because of your self-interest in remaining an Associate Justice. At this point I would like to point out to everyone your motives for continuing this overly worked conversation.

You think my proposal would be illegal? Come on Mr. Election Office. Run an election for the Judiciary right now and use the laws we have in place. It would look just like my proposal, wouldn't it?

What? I can't hear you....

Through PMs, Ravensfire and I have worked up a compromise that may be suitable for this situation. As we were the two candidates for the CJ position, it seems appropriate that we come up with an appropriat solution. Here's the PM:

Re: CJ Election
Good - we agree!

I'm going through the ruleset threads - would you mind posting this in the CJ election thread? One thread, all candidates, give 'em 24 hours to drop nomination then run the election poll.

We agree, let's see if everyone else does.

-- Ravensfire



quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cyc wrote on Jan 01, 2004 09:59 PM:
Of the two, I would say the latter:
"post one poll with all candidates in the CJ and AJ elections and run a 2 or 3 day election."

Although we may want to allow any of the candidates the opportunity to drop out before the election poll goes up.

Cyc




quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

ravensfire wrote on Jan 01, 2004 07:45 PM:
I can see two options then for a re-vote:

Ignoring how we got to this point, the letter of the law would say a runoff poll.

Recognizing how we got to this point, toss out the entire Judicial elections, post one poll with all candidates in the CJ and AJ elections and run a 2 or 3 day election.

Preference?
-- Ravensfire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Now we still have have to disallow the Nomination process, but by allowing all Candidates in the Judicial elections thus far to accept/decline participation in the New Election Poll for the Judiciary, this would pretty much be covered. This process also expidites the solution as some people want to rush through this as quickly as possible.

Originally posted by Cyc
Boots, the laws were in the process of being written and or ratified to be used in the DGIV game. Just because the Election Office failed to keep current with the new legislatiuon is not my fault.
That is irrelevant, just because the election office didn't follow unratified rules doesn't mean that those rules apply to the elections.

It seems to me you want to avoid the issue of legality because of your self-interest in remaining an Associate Justice. At this point I would like to point out to everyone your motives for continuing this overly worked conversation.
Avoiding the issue of legality?! That is ridiculous; I based my entire argument on whether your proposal was legal and pointing out that there are is a provision for runoffs in the CoL. I also displayed the counterpoint that none of these rules even apply to the election in question because they were not ratified before the election was over. As to your other point, of course I have self-interest in remaining an Associate Justice. However, the main reason that I would continue arguing this is to perform my job as Associate Justice and as a concerned citizen; I see something that appears illegal and I am challenging it.

You think my proposal would be illegal? Come on Mr. Election Office. Run an election for the Judiciary right now and use the laws we have in place. It would look just like my proposal, wouldn't it? I would run a runoff election for the CJ position. Runoffs are specifically covered in the CoL, and as such I would think that a runoff for this election would be legal.

I would also like to see you refute with evidence either of my points: That your proposed polling process is illegal, and that the laws that were ratified after the elections were over should not apply.

EDIT: The proposal that you and ravensfire have agreed to may be a good idea but is still illegal for the same reasons that I posted above.

I have received the voting results from Thunderfall and have determined that there has been no fraudulent activity.

Now in regards to settling this matter, I suggest that we immediately hold a run-off election for the entire Judiciary. The candidates should be:

Ravensfire
Cyc
Peri
Bootstoots

The only thing I do not like about this option is that it may strip Peri of an electoral victory that was won fair and square. A secondary option would be to hold an election between Ravensfire, Cyc and Boots, but something about that doesn't sit well with me either. Please let me know how we may tweak this option.

Lastly and most importantly, I would like to offer my most sincere apologies for letting this matter unfold as it has. Truth be told, the holidays were a whirlwind of family obligations, where I found myself with more days off and ironically less time for the forums. In my absence, both CJ candidates here have been pretty much holding a personal conversation in the Citizens Forum about our laws for the last two weeks, and for that I am grateful.

The important thing here is to not question each other's motives during this crucial time, as no one is at fault here but myself. I wanted so much to keep our deadline that I made some decisions that put the entire Judicial election in doubt. Please let me know if my solution will help to fix my mistakes.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Wayward Mod :(

As stated in my previous reply to Cyc, I approve of running a single poll with all candidates from the previous CJ and AJ polls. The person receiving the most votes will be CJ, the next two will be AJ's.


If more than one person has the same number of votes for the 1st place position after the new election, there will still have to be a runoff poll. The winner of the runoff poll would be the CJ and the loser(s) of the runoff poll would be AJ(s).
If the CJ position is not a tie, and three or more tie for the AJ position, then a runoff poll will be required to determine the AJ's, unless enough candidates withdraw.


It would be helpful if one or preferably both mods confirm the procedure as defined by Cyc and ravensfire, possibly as an emergency one-time special rule. I see that DZ beat me to the "submit" button.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I have received the voting results from Thunderfall and have determined that there has been no fraudulent activity.

Now in regards to settling this matter, I suggest that we immediately hold a run-off election for the entire Judiciary. The candidates should be:

Ravensfire
Cyc
Peri
Bootstoots

The only thing I do not like about this option is that it may strip Peri of an electoral victory that was won fair and square. A secondary option would be to hold an election between Ravensfire, Cyc and Boots, but something about that doesn't sit well with me either. Please let me know how we may tweak this option.

Lastly and most importantly, I would like to offer my most sincere apologies for letting this matter unfold as it has. Truth be told, the holidays were a whirlwind of family obligations, where I found myself with more days off and ironically less time for the forums. In my absence, both CJ candidates here have been pretty much holding a personal conversation in the Citizens Forum about our laws for the last two weeks, and for that I am grateful.

The important thing here is to not question each other's motives during this crucial time, as no one is at fault here but myself. I wanted so much to keep our deadline that I made some decisions that put the entire Judicial election in doubt. Please let me know if my solution will help to fix my mistakes.

Respectfully,

Donovan Zoi
Wayward Mod :( Your proposal does not fit fully within the letter of the law, but I think that it is a good proposal and does serve as a good compromise between Cyc and me. I cannot fully support it as that would not be in line with my above posts, but I will accept it if that is the final decision.

Originally posted by DaveShack
As stated in my previous reply to Cyc, I approve of running a single poll with all candidates from the previous CJ and AJ polls. The person receiving the most votes will be CJ, the next two will be AJ's.


If more than one person has the same number of votes for the 1st place position after the new election, there will still have to be a runoff poll. The winner of the runoff poll would be the CJ and the loser(s) of the runoff poll would be AJ(s).
If the CJ position is not a tie, and three or more tie for the AJ position, then a runoff poll will be required to determine the AJ's, unless enough candidates withdraw.



DS,

Although not a mod (Woohoo! DZ - glad it's you, not me!), I believe your interpretation of the two situations is correct.

-- Ravensfire

well, we've got it narrowed done to 4 candidates or what? 7?

Either way works for me as long as we give candidates a chance to decline.

As the elections are, in fact, supervised by the Moderators, I can handle DZ's proposal.

It is an unfortunate fact that we have a plethora of highly qualified candidates for the bench. Hmm, maybe we need 4 Associate Justices ...

-- Ravensfire

@Cyc - After reading the compromise between Ravensfire and yourself(I was typing at the time ;) ), I agree that it would be best to have one election for all candidates from both elections, while giving 24 hours for some to back off.

@Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.

Sound good, everyone?

Suits me. This is the way it should be. Thanks DZ and eyrei, and everyone else who helped contribute to this resolution.

And thanks to all of you who voted for me!!!!

I need your vote again!!!!

Originally posted by ravensfire
As the elections are, in fact, supervised by the Moderators, I can handle DZ's proposal.

It is an unfortunate fact that we have a plethora of highly qualified candidates for the bench. Hmm, maybe we need 4 Associate Justices ...

-- Ravensfire

Mine is best used for expediency, but since I have been pretty much removed from this process for its entirety, I will let you guys be the judge.

4 candidates or 7?

The two CJ candidates and the top two AJ candidates in a runoff is fine with me, and technically can be allowed since our CoS article concerning elections will not be ratified until tomorrow.

DZ, the CoS legislation was ratified almost 12 hours ago. :) That would be Section Y of the CoS.

I say we go with 7 and allow 24hrs for any declining.

Then to eliminate confusion, let me reiterate my initial suggestion: ;)

@Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.

Sound good, everyone?

It seems to me that the nominations are not in dispute, nor are the acceptances, but rather only the elections themselves. Therefore, it seems logical and just that any new election for the judicial branch include all candidates from the original elections.

just split the term, CYC, you take the first half, ravensfire, you take the second! that way it's all even it's all fair, or one of you take the first term, the other the second

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
@Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.

Sound good, everyone?
Pre-election thread posted. I will consider all candidates to be in this race unless they post otherwise. Though it still isn't fully legal, I am resigned to the fact that we must find some way to resolve this election and that this is the method that the general consensus agrees to. Hopefully nothing like this arises again; I will make sure that the Election Office posts the correct nomination threads next time around, and I will try to help it show more organization to avoid confusing situations.