Folks,

It is clear from the new judiciary election that having a shotgun approach to electing the CJ and AJs using a single poll will not work the way most of us want it to. We really need a way to indicate our 2nd and 3rd choice.

I would like to propose that the CoS be amended to specify 3 judiciary polls, labeled as CJ, AJ1, AJ2, and having an identical set of candidates. The winner of the CJ poll is CJ. The AJs are the winners of the AJ polls, after subtracting the CJ winner from the AJ1 poll, and the CJ and AJ1 winners from the AJ2 poll. Alternatively, any candidate who wants to be AJ but not CJ may be left off the CJ poll.

I know there will be at least one argument that this proposal violates the 1 person = 1 vote principle. ;)

Let's hear from a wider set of people this time... :D

I agree that the one poll system does not work - we need 3 seperate polls for 3 seperate Leaders positions.

DaveShack, that is an interesting proposal. I will have to think on it before I comment.

edit: And I think we need to have seperate elections for Governors-at-Large. The same arguments that apply here should apply there.

I really think that having separate polls for either set of elections will only add more confusion, and will still leave us with a sinking feeling during election time. I think the only solution is to allow for citizens to vote for their three choices in one multi-choice poll.

Keep in mind that this can be checked by the Moderators, and anyone that votes for more than three candidates can have their votes disqualified. I don't think we should penalize those who select less than three candidates, however.

I can check with Thunderfall to make sure we can monitor multi-choice polls. Also, if we do this, it is quite obvious that we need to to restrict from seeking office any moderator in charge of this task(most likely myself).

Thoughts?

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I really think that having separate polls for either set of elections will only add more confusion,

I don't see how there would be any confusion. The judiciary is basically the same as last game except some different titles. So why should the election process be different?


I think the only solution is to allow for citizens to vote for their three choices in one multi-choice poll.

That would be fine provided explicit instructions to the voters are in the first post (every term) to the effect that they can only vote for up to 3. Also, I think you would have to verify every election done this way and report your findings to give the citizens comfort that there was no problems with the election.

I believe both of these ideas are the wrong way to approach the situation. It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do. I really believe this approach you will try to change to (either one) will just cause more confusion and is also ripe for abuse.

Originally posted by Cyc
It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do.

Let's look at the effect of this poll. It selects 3 people to fill what many people consider to be the 3 most important positions in the entire demogame. What is wrong with allowing the citizens to choose their top 3 candidates?

Here is a contrived example to point out the flaw in the current system. Take a hypothetical set of 5 candidates: Abe, Bart, Charlie, Doug, Evelyn. There are 10 citizens with the following preferences, in order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice, (abbreviated)



abc
cba
dba
eba
ebc
bca
dec
edc
bdc
bcd


A has 1 1st place, 0 2nd place, 4 3rd place = 5 votes
B has 3 1st place, 5 2nd place, 0 3rd place = 8 votes
C has 1 1st place, 2 2nd place, 5 3rd place = 8 votes
D has 2 1st place, 2 2nd place, 1 3rd place = 5 votes
E has 3 1st place, 1 2nd place, 0 3rd place = 4 votes

totals 10, 10, 10 = 30 votes

Under the current system, the judiciary would be B, E, D with a runoff between Bart and Evelyn for Chief Justice. Evelyn has the least total support, while Charlie, who is tied for 1st in total support, gets left out entirely because the people are not allowed to state their 2nd and 3rd choices directly.

Please offer an alternative which prevents this hypothetical situation from occurring. I'm willing to listen to any system which gives the people the ability to choose what they actually want.

Yeah, great work, DS. I'm sure the average Joe player is prepared to do all this extra math to confirm who you declare the winners are.

Let's take the current poll for the Judiciary. We have 7 candidates. One candidate has 8 votes and looks to be at this point in time a clear winner (therefore CJ), the next runner up has 4 votes and the one behind him has 3 votes. The last two would be the Associate Justices, only with no math involved. The people had one vote to make. Simple. The top three vote-getters were elected. Simple.

I suppose you could get the same results if you warped and twisted the process, and possibly confused the citizens voting, but why would we want to do this?

I believe both of these ideas are the wrong way to approach the situation. It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do. I really believe this approach you will try to change to (either one) will just cause more confusion and is also ripe for abuse.

At the core of this issue is that there are three people elected, but the people only get to cast one vote. The citizens should be allowed to vote for their first, second and third choice.

-----

As far as the CJ, AJ1, AJ2 system is concerned, there are too many permutations and combinations that could negatively affect the results. What if on citizen votes Boots for AJ1 and zorven for AJ2, and the next votes for zorven for AJ1 and Boots for AJ2, and the third votes in Boots for all three offices? Each election would be poorly represented because of the different voting combos people could make.

If we have three different polls, should a person be able to vote for the same person in all three polls? I don't think so, and therefore I would have to check three individual polls for the Judiciary instead of one multi-choice poll.

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.

Hopefully this somewhat makes sense. You are looking at 1am rambling here....... ;)

Let's look at the effect of this poll. It selects 3 people to fill what many people consider to be the 3 most important positions in the entire demogame. What is wrong with allowing the citizens to choose their top 3 candidates?

Dave, we shouldn't need to rank our selections. If we are merely allowed to select three candidates in one multi-choice poll, the most worthy candidates should still find themselves close to the top.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


At the core of this issue is that there are three people elected, but the people only get to cast one vote. The citizens should be allowed to vote for their first, second and third choice.

-----

As far as the CJ, AJ1, AJ2 system is concerned, there are too many permutations and combinations that could negatively affect the results. What if on citizen votes Boots for AJ1 and zorven for AJ2, and the next votes for zorven for AJ1 and Boots for AJ2, and the third votes in Boots for all three offices? Each election would be poorly represented because of the different voting combos people could make.

If we have three different polls, should a person be able to vote for the same person in all three polls? I don't think so, and therefore I would have to check three individual polls for the Judiciary instead of one multi-choice poll.

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.

Hopefully this somewhat makes sense. You are looking at 1am rambling here....... ;)

Exactly DZ. Both of the situational election problems would occur using those setups. With the "1 person - 1 vote" setup, everyone votes once for who the want to win, period. The end result is the top three vote getters (or maybe the top three most qualified) are elected. No confusing process or results encountered.

Originally posted by Cyc
Let's take the current poll for the Judiciary. We have 7 candidates. One candidate has 8 votes and looks to be at this point in time a clear winner (therefore CJ), the next runner up has 4 votes and the one behind him has 3 votes. The last two would be the Associate Justices, only with no math involved. The people had one vote to make. Simple. The top three vote-getters were elected. Simple.

I suppose you could get the same results if you warped and twisted the process, and possibly confused the citizens voting, but why would we want to do this?

Easy for the winner to say, hard for the losers...

The whole point is that if we were allowed to choose multiple candidates, then the people with 4 and 3 votes in the current example probably would not win. Someone with no votes at all in the current poll would likely be one of the AJ's in a multi-choice poll. We all know this because the previous set of polls shows it to be true.

Assuming the mods can detect votes which select more than the allowed number of candidates, the multi-choice poll is the way to go. It's good enough for RL (school board elections, city council, even state legislature in Arizona, just to name a few). If RL can handle multi-choice, surely a game can handle it.

Exactly DZ. Both of the situational election problems would occur using those setups. With the "1 person - 1 vote" setup, everyone votes once for who the want to win, period. The end result is the top three vote getters (or maybe the top three most qualified) are elected. No confusing process or results encountered.

Not necessarily, Cyc. The citizens should be allowed 3 votes for the elected offices. Period. Any less has the chance of putting our system at the mercy of small voting blocks that we know exist in the DemoGame.

The example of Peri in the current election(only one vote so far in the "free for all" after being top vote getter for the disqualified AJ elections)screams out as a denouncement of the "one vote for three positions" method. The returns are still early, so I will keep my eye on this one.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


Not necessarily, Cyc. The citizens should be allowed 3 votes for the elected offices. Period. Any less has the chance of putting our system at the mercy of small voting blocks that we know exist in the DemoGame.

The example of Peri in the current election(only one vote so far in the "free for all" after being top vote getter for the disqualified AJ elections)screams out as a denouncement of the "one vote for three positions" method. The returns are still early, so I will keep my eye on this one.

True, DZ. This goes to point out that if we hadn't of run the Judicial elctions in an improper manner to begin with (let's say you had them re-organized when you got my PM out them), you would not have to point out the mishaps that are caused when correcting the situation. You arguement is based on faulty elections, DZ.

You arguement is based on faulty elections, DZ.

It would be nice if you would respond to my points, Cyc. There are three people here so far that take issue with our current structure, yet you are the only one so far to defend it. You introduce yourself as the peoples' champion, and yet I believe that you are doing the people a disservice if you do not allow them to have their say in all three Judiciary positions. If you are truly fighting for the rights of the people, this would be the logical place to start.

I urge anyone browsing or lurking this thread to post their opinion.

I urge you, DZ to defend an Election Office that based the Gubernatorial Election polls on the same legislation they said they couldn't find for the Judiciary Poll.

If you notice the Gubernatorial poll went off without a hitch and was done exactly like the Judiciary was supposed to be done. EVERYONE was happy with that election poll. :) But that would shoot your theory down wouldn't it.

Any idea on why the Election Office read right by the Judiciary part of proposed CoS Section Y in order to find the Gubernatorial part? Probably not, that would shoot down another part of your theory. :D

I urge you, DZ to defend an Election Office that based the Gubernatorial Election polls on the same legislation they said they couldn't find for the Judiciary Poll.

If you notice the Gubernatorial poll went off without a hitch and was done exactly like the Judiciary was supposed to be done. EVERYONE was happy with that election poll. :) But that would shoot your theory down wouldn't it.

Any idea on why the Election Office read right by the Judiciary part of proposed CoS Section Y in order to find the Gubernatorial part? Probably not, that would shoot down another part of your theory. :D

Actually, look closer and you will see that the Election Office treated the campaign of "Unnamed Province" just as any Gubernatorial election in the past, and did not adhere to new law. The was no mention whatsoever of Governors-at-large in the first post. In fact, Governors-at-large do not get mentioned until the second page of the thread(by Plexus).

I suspect that the reason there was no outcry in the Governor's race is because there was not as much publicity. All eyes were on the Judicial election for a whole host of reasons. Who will complete the ruleset? How will the as-yet-unratified new system work? There is alot at stake in the Judiciary this game, so people tend to get a bit nuttier about that.

And I am one of those nuts. ;) I would have liked to support the candidacy of who I considered to be the three most objective and experienced jurists in our land. Instead, I was forced to choose only one of them and cast the other two aside, even though there are three positions to fill. This is wrong. It is also wrong in the Gubernatorial race and we should adopt a similar practice there, whether anyone cares or not.

Keep in mind that anything that gets passed here will not nullify your certain victory, so you should not take any of this personally. I do want a different system in place for Term 2.

And I am still looking for less combative, completely objective responses for our soon-to-be-crowned Chief Justice. Otherwise, this should prove to be a most interesting term indeed.

:) Heheheh. Combative. Come on DZ. We have known each other since you came aboard the Demogame. If you remember, you used to work for me in the RPG. I was your first employer here. :) We have been discussing policies for longer than most people have been here. I am not fighting you. We are debating.

This is a Democracy Game. A game in which different ideas and policies are debated to come up with the most appropriate solution. Some debates are hotly contested, but that doesn't mean people are fighting. It means they believe in their solution and want to express their opinions of it.

I also realize that it's easy not to see things that other people can point out, just as it can be easy to only see some people's side of an arguement. That's the nature of politics, and this is a political game. No hard feelings, big guy.

Originally Posted by Donovan Zoi
I urge anyone browsing or lurking this thread to post their opinion.
As someone who has lurked for a while, but has only got involved with this demogame and is not involved in getting themselves voted into any position, certainly not the judiciary, I have followed this election with interest and sadness.

As a citizen, what I would like to be able to do is to vote for the 3 people I want to be in the judiciary. I had been wondering overnight whether the Moderators could check multi-choice polls, but the discussion has obviously gone way past that while I slept and DZ has already proposed it. A 3 vote multi-choice poll (excess votes eliminated by the Moderators) would seem to be to be the fairest way of doing it. Simply then add up the number of votes each candidate gets, top 3 in, winner is CJ. I don’t think that we need to go to the complication of ranking our choices. The Moderators will have to be involved, but both are unlikely to be running in the same election – and if they are or if you really don’t trust them (and what does that say about the state of affairs) then get a Mod from elsewhere in the Forums or even ask Thunderfall!

I agree with DaveShack that the Charlie situation (the most popular candidate gets left out because he was everyone’s 2nd choice) means the single election for all three doesn’t work as well as hoped. Separate elections for each position – again I agree with DZ’s comments on this one. One possibility (certainly not saying it’s a good one) that nobody’s mentioned yet is a poll for each candidate (ie: 8 candidate, 8 polls) – do you want this candidate to be in the judiciary?, Yes, No, Abstain, again most votes win. You could only vote for each candidate once, but could theoretically vote for them all!

The At-Large Governor I do not see as such a critical affair as before too long they will be replaced by separate elections once the Provinces are formed. Saying that though, if we can have multi-choice poll then that would be better.

My choice for the Judicary would be a 3 vote, multi-choice election.

Furiey, thanks for your very well stated reply. I say this not because your position happens to agree with mine, but because it looks like we have a new rising star, if you decide to stay active. I look forward to your comments as we get started with the actual game! :goodjob:

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.


The same could be said of Governors. Say there are 3 provinces. A citizen can only run for one of them. If they lose, the are robbed of being governor. Do you propose that we scrap how we do elections for governors?

Originally posted by zorven


The same could be said of Governors. Say there are 3 provinces. A citizen can only run for one of them. If they lose, the are robbed of being governor. Do you propose that we scrap how we do elections for governors?

Well, actually, that is how we will be electing them once we divide our nation into provinces. Also, I just listed this as a suggestion, but as you can see from the rest of that paragraph, it would not be my first choice.

:) Heheheh. Combative. Come on DZ. We have known each other since you came aboard the Demogame. If you remember, you used to work for me in the RPG. I was your first employer here. :) We have been discussing policies for longer than most people have been here. I am not fighting you. We are debating.

This is a Democracy Game. A game in which different ideas and policies are debated to come up with the most appropriate solution. Some debates are hotly contested, but that doesn't mean people are fighting. It means they believe in their solution and want to express their opinions of it.

I also realize that it's easy not to see things that other people can point out, just as it can be easy to only see some people's side of an arguement. That's the nature of politics, and this is a political game. No hard feelings, big guy.


None here either, Cyc. :) You can take note of the (somewhat)olive branch that I left you over in the new election thread last nite. I am assuming that you have already read it and chose not to respond. And by combative, I do not refer to your talks with me, but several other instances with others during the discussions. You have no idea how hard it is for me to not support your candidacy.

BTW, it is now 4-1 for changing the current process. ;)

zorven,

I would differentiate between Judicial and Guberantorial elections. Although there is some difference between the CJ and AJ positions, generally it's just paperwork.

The provinces, however, now there are some interesting differences. Cities, production capacity, foreign borders, infrastructure, all of these combine to create a unique set of challenges for each province. Our election laws restrict a citizen to participating in the election for only one province, forcing them to choose which set of challenges they feel most qualified to face. During the debates, this process also citizens to tailor their questions for each province.

DaveShack - I quite like your idea. I'm not totally sure of the best way to impliment it though. Perhaps eryei would be willing to have the votes PM'd to him, and post a running total of the votes. This would allow DZ to take an active role in the campaign for the Judiciary without any hint of impropriety. Of course, this does assume eryei being both willing to participate in such a system, and take a passive role in Judicial elections.

-- Ravensfire

We've had a post saying that it is possible for the mods to verify individual votes in a multi-choice poll, to ensure the stated maximum number of boxes checked is not exceeded. Votes in violation of the poll requirements can be excluded.

Assuming this is accurate, the only real argument against multi-choice in my mind is removed. If all valid votes can be guaranteed to only include the number of choices equal to or less than the number of positions, then this is logically the perfect way to go.

As such, here is a proposed amendment to [which body of law?]

Had to feed the baby and didn't get back to this tonight...
[post the old text here]

[post the new text here]

Any discussion on the concrete proposal? We have strong positions stated on both sides, it is nearing the time to let the people decide in a poll.

<will locate the actual law and edit in the actual change>

Dave,

Your modifications would be in the Code of Standards, probably III.D.1 in the Judiciary section.

NOTE: As we continue through the Ratification process, I am consolidating and reformatting the ratified laws to produce a single document, consistently formatted. NO wording is changed. As a book completes, I am forwarding it to DZ for eventual posting. This process may result in changes to the numbering of various laws. I ask all citizens to take this in mind, and recognize that, until the final format is complete, there will be slight changes in numbering.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

DaveShack is correct in that the current system for electing both the Justices and the Governors is flawed. They do serve their respective purposes, but they could be handled better.

Donovan Zoi has suggested conducting a multi-select poll that shall be closely monitored by a site moderator to ensure nobody votes for more than the allowed number of candidates (presently 3). I think this is a step in the right direction, but I would suggest that it goes a bit too far to an extreme needed to solve this problem.

I would suggest that we simply employ a multi-select poll listing all the candidates and inform everyone of how many candidates will be elected (ie. 3 Justices with the top vote-getter becoming CJ, or 5 Senators, etc.).

There is no need to moderate this poll.

Consider this: if you have the ability to vote for all candidates, and do so, who's cause have you helped? No one's. You have essentially thrown your vote away. On the other hand, if you only vote for one individual (or even a small few), then you have significantly helped that person's cause. The more votes you cast, the weaker the effect you will have on the outcome. Foolish citizens that vote too often in such polls will only end up cancelling their own voices out.

I would structure the laws as follows:
III. Polling
1. Judiciary exceptions:
i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
ii. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
a. 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. This poll shall last for 2 days.
iii. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate
Justices.
iv. Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in the run-off poll to determine who shall
be the final Associate Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.
2. At-Large Governors
i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
positions.
a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
cycle.
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.

Now FortyJ's plan is one I could get behind. It seems very workable, and it's not so complicated as the others, and doesn't require that Mods constantly check votes throughout the election poll. Maybe some fine tuning on the wording, but the idea as a whole seems to be better than the rest.

hm, not to limit the maximum number of votes seems to be an interesting idea. I dont see something bad about it at first glance.

but even if the number of votes is limited to three, i think i would prefer the three votes not being ranked (the last meaning that the first vote goes for the CJ etc.). first its less complicated. second, what if the situation is like this:

A gets 6 - 0 - 0 (first vote regarding the CJ etc.)
B gets 0 - 6 - 0
C gets 0 - 0 - 6
D gets 5 - 5 - 5

now if the votes are ranked (i.e. position specific), D wouldnt get anything though he is obviously quite popular... more than C for sure...

it think the multiple-choice-without-rank-system works in particular quite well for the judicial branch, as the three positions basically have the same job.

oh another note regarding FortyJs law text... when there is a tie for the CJ, there is another poll to decide who wins. But after that the other candidate should then automatically become AJ, shouldnt he?

dreiche2

There is currently no provision that allows us to post a multi-select poll with a limitation on the number of votes you can cast. It's not programmed to do so. Therefore, in order to do so, we would need to have moderators check the election and remove any votes in which the individual cast more than 3. I dislike this option on a number of levels.

Also, I think it's understood that the runner-up in a run-off election for CJ would be an AJ. It clearly states that the recipient of the 2nd and 3rd most votes gets elected to the AJ positions. A candidate tied for 1st place would presumably meet that criteria.

Finally, to Cyc and all other critics of "my" wording...

:p
Take it up with the original authors. ;) I was merely trying to remain consistent with what they originally put forward and was recently ratified.

@ FortyJ :p :lol: Too funny. Let's keep in mind that "the original authors" we're also borrowing from the truly original authors. :lol:

FortyJ:

well, then make no limits to the votes, i still see no problems with that.

about the law text: yes i hope its clear that way, just wanted to be sure. cause if u really wanted to u could understand the "2d" as the "2d" in the first original vote while the tied would both be "1d", you know what i mean?

so again about the law text, to really be exact it should be added that

-if there is a tie for the CJ, the final appointment of the AJs has to be delayed until the 2 day poll about the CJs is closed
-the looser in this poll is automatically declared 2d. regarding the number of votes, so that only the position of the second AJ has yet to be decided about

all quite common sense, but who knows...

I don't mind not having a limit on the number of votes, for the reason stated by FortyJ.

The ranked voting was for illustration only -- never wanted it to remain in the final proposal.

I'd say do the minor editing of FortyJ's proposal to make it clear the loser of the runoff for CJ is still an AJ, and add something to deal with 3 or more tied in the 1st poll (runoff amongst all tied, with top 3 vote getters being the 3 justices, top being CJ, runoffs ad nauseum until we get something decisive).

I honestly thing we are trying to solve a problem that has already been solved in three previous demo games.

There are three positions in the judiciary, and therefore, there should be three different polls for the election. Or, in the alternative, two polls, one for CJ, and one for AJ's with the top two winning.

I am not sure what we think we are gaining by combining this important election poll in terms of time or confusion savings, whereas we have no issue whatsoever with taking an hour or so in preturn to play the game.

No matter the outcome, it is imperative that the CJ election be seperate. The CJ position is critical in this game. I wish that it were not quite so important, but it is (rant on) a reflection of society's attitude today that somehow the courts must solve our problems.(/rant off)

The CJ is the voice of the court, and not only is impartiality a given, but it is also critical that the individual in that position be able to articulate their ideas and reasoning in a way that doesn't necessary convince their detractors, but does clearly illustrate the logic behind the decision.

Therefore a individual election for CJ should remain a priority of ours.

**note, none of the above is an indictment of the current CJ, or any previous CJ's... except for perhaps myself... this demo game has been blessed to have excellent CJ's in the past and present. My aim is to keep it that way.

Bill,

Your assessment of the importance of the Chief Justice position is 100% on target. The reason we moved away from a PD and JA to two associate justices was to separate the decision making aspect of PIs (now called citizen complaints) from the prosecution and defense roles.

The reason for having a single election rather than separate CJ and AJ elections is to automatically include losers from the CJ election into the mix for AJ. It would be just as easy to have all the CJ candidates who will be satisfied with being AJ to self-nominate into the AJ election.

Unfortunately what we have now is a single choice poll for all positions. It needs to be changed anyway, it's just a matter of what to change it to.

So for further discussion, should we pursue an amendment for a single multi-choice election, or an amendment for separate CJ and AJ elections? (which incidentally switches back to the way it was at the beginning of the term :rolleyes: )

I like the ability to specify directly who the CJ should be.

ok so its either one multiple-choice poll for all three positions or two seperate polls?

in the latter case, the CJ should be decided upon first, so that the candidates can apply for AJ afterwards if they were not elected. do we agree on that?

Originally posted by dreiche2
ok so its either one multiple-choice poll for all three positions or two seperate polls?

in the latter case, the CJ should be decided upon first, so that the candidates can apply for AJ afterwards if they were not elected. do we agree on that?

This is the right sentiment, but unfortunately all the elections have to run in parallel. The alternative is to have the CJ candidates also apply for AJ -- someone who wins both polls has to "resign" one of them anyway.

This brings me to an interesting side trip. If the same person wins more than one election, do they enter both offices and then resign one, causing a vacancy which is filled via appointment? My opinion is the right thing to do is let the 2nd place have it, but that's not what the law says.

There are a few reasons for having a single election for the three (or in the case of the Senate, multiple) positions.

First and foremost, the positions (particularly in the High Court) are essentially the same. They are each vested with the same authority, power and priviledges. No candidate is charged with any specific responsibility (ie. prosecution or defense). They are each charged with deliberating over cases brought before them and rendering a verdict.

Now, certainly some of you are saying "Wait a sec", and granted, the Chief Justice is charged with certain additional duties, but those duties could just as easily be assigned to any member of the court and are therefore not position specific. Assigning them to the Chief Justice is more a housekeeping matter to prevent the justices from fumbling over themselves trying to do the same tasks.

Secondly, dividing the elections into separate polls for each position on the court risks exclusion of qualified candidates and confusion at the polls. With no clear division of power and responsibilities, we would be forced to hold elections for Justice 1, Justice 2 and Justice 3 (one of which would be slated to become Chief Justice).

Should all polls include all the candidates? If so, we run the risk of an individual gaining election in 2 or more polls. We could always take the 2nd place finisher in one of the polls, but what if there is a different second place finisher in each poll? Which one should we choose?

If we divide the candidates between the polls, how shall this be done? On which criteria shall we group the candidates for each poll? Regardless of the criteria used, we run the risk of a competent and desirable candidate failing to win election simply because he or she finished second to an even more desirable candidate - in other words, a victim of poor grouping.

Compare this with the prospect of using a single poll, in which citizens can vote for multiple candidates, and it becomes clear that a consolidated poll, while possibly imperfect, resolves many of the issues created when using multiple polls. By using only one poll, no candidate risks accidental exclusion.

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, bu you may want to consider CoS Section Y.I.D ~

D. A citizen is limited to accepting no more than 3 nominations in any
election cycle.
1. Each accepted nomination must be in a different branch of Government.
2. The Election Office is responsible for contacting citizens that have
exceeded the limit.
3. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to the limit, the
Election Office shall interpret the earier acceptances as having
priority over the later in creating the election ballots.

Therefore, I believe FortyJ's proposal would be best. :(
The candidate would have to be nominated for Chief Justice and accept only that in the Judicial Branch. Associate Justices would be a conolation price.

A few counter points:

1) I am not so much concerned with what the law says currently, as we are talking about changing the law anyhow.

2) I think it is very wrong to lump the chief justice in with the associate justices. That is equivalent to saying the President is just the same as the Military Leader, and oh sure, he has some specific additional responsibilities... but really nothing that couldn't be passed on.

If we want all three judiciary members to be the same, then lets do it that way. I am not opposed to that approach at all. But, if we are going to put additional responsibility on one position, then we should have a specific election for that position. I support the idea of having two AJ's selected from one election.

It still seems to me that we are trying a huge work around to something easily solved. Change the law so that it is okay to run for both CJ and AJ in the same election. We had no issue dealing with someone winning two elections in the past, we simply went with second place.

I guess I am missing why we went to all this trouble to change one of the processes that was working from the past. Now we are faced with the difficulties of the new changes.

Smart people did this, so I am sure there are very good reasons for it. I am just not aware of them right now.

Your analogy is slightly off the mark. The President's roles are clearly defined and are substantially different than that of any of the advisors, or any other elected position for that matter.

The Chief Justice, on the other hand, has no special privileges compared to the other justices. He has no veto authority over the rulings of the Associate Justices. He has no authority to appoint replacements. There is no in-game function that he alone is responsible for. He merely has his opinion on judicial matters just like the other two justices have their opinions, and those opinions are equally weighted.

Granted, he is charged with certain housekeeping tasks, such as posting in the Judicial Log and maintaining the Official thread for the Judiciary, but could we not just as easily assign these tasks to a "lesser" justice who we could label the Clerk of the Court? After all, some of the responsibilities currently assigned to the Chief Justice might be considered beneath a person holding such an esteemed office.

Finally, if we do hold a separate CJ election, we run the risk of not having an extremely qualified and competent justice serve on the court simply because he or she did not win the CJ race. Anyone doubting this assertion need only look back a few weeks to our original elections in which ravensfire and cyc tied in the CJ race. A victory by either one of these individuals would have resulted in the other not serving on the bench. Certainly, the other individual deserves to be on the bench as well, albeit in a lesser capacity.

So should we allow the runner-up in the CJ race to automatically serve? We would have to change the AJ poll to only 1 individual then. But what if the CJ race is a close 3-way race? Should we then forego the AJ altogether? Methinks that leads us back to the consolidated poll proposal.

hey bill,

you say:

"Change the law so that it is okay to run for both CJ and AJ in the same election."

you mean two polls in the same election process, one for CJ, one for AJ, and its okay to candidate in both, right?

cause i see another problem here (at least at first glance): if person A is canditating for both positions, and I want this person to be in the Judiciary, i would to have to vote for him in both elections to be sure. and if there is only one vote in both polls then again i could effectively only cast one vote for actually three positions.

even if there is two votes in the AJ poll, i would still have to reserve one vote for candidate A, so i can only vote for two persons in three positions.

do you know what i mean? (i might have overlooked something)

i still think: either do the elections one after another or make a single election with multiple votes, so that the "best" one will become CJ and the next two AJs..?

@FortyJ: I see what you are saying, but my point is that are we trying to make this so complicated when it was fine before. Run three elections, run two elections, or whatever. Simply allow someone to run in both the CJ and AJ elections. Done.

If the Chief Justice does not have significant responsibilities. Why do we have one? I say abolish the office then, and go with three justices.

To further the President analogy, the President doesn't really have any power at all either. In fact, the President was recently forced to make a game move he was very against, and one that was to the detriment of our nation. In effect, he was subserviant to the Military Department. So in many ways, the CJ is more powerful than our President, in that at least he or she can generally do what he or she wants.

@dreiche2: Yes, I mean be allowed to run in two elections. Historically in this game we had no problem with that.

To all, it is a good possibility I am missing the point here. However, my understanding is that we wanted to ensure we got good people on the bench in a world where we wanted to limit elections.

So we bent the judiciary election to be different than all others in the hopes of accomplishing that, rather than saying, "hey, the judiciary elections were fine, no matter the name of the offices."

I am just not seeing the benefits of these changes. Citizen complaint or Public Investigation. Judge Advocate or Associate Justice. The truth is, we want three people to meet to help us work through these problems we have with our laws. Whatever you call em, we want the three folks willing to take a thankless job, where in many cases half the people are going to be convinced that you are a loon for thinking that way.

However, one of those three has responsibility to report to the public on the results of those discussions, and how they will impact the nation. That person has a higher burden, and I am not going to cry if we don't do it, but I feel the CJ should be a stand alone election.

Just my .02

I think we've put some good arguments on the table here for both sides. Maybe it's time we composed a proposal and poll this matter rather than continue to debate it ad nauseum.

ok, so whats the official procedure to do this?

i will just name two alternatives that in my opinion should be part of the poll:

1. One multiple-choice poll for the whole branch with no vote limit.

(This is if you think that CJ and AJ is basically the same, or that CJ is just a little bit more so that it is ok that the "best" becomes CJ and the second and third become AJs, but basically the same candidates apply for all positions)

2. Two seperate polls for CJ and AJ, with the latter taking place *after* the CJ has been decided about.

(So that candidates can still apply for AJ if they did not win the CJ election, but you have still influence on all positions as a voter, which you would not have if both elections took place simultaneously)

well for the second case you probably have to split up the choice to define how the AJs should be voted (e.g. again multiple-choice etc.)

what do you all think?

There are two ways to do this:


Pick one of the alternatives with the most support and put it forward for ratification. Advantages: it may be successful in one step. Disadvantages: don't really know if the people would have preferred the other option(s).
Have a poll with all the options. Then have a ratification poll for the one with the most support. Advantage: we know exactly which one has the most support. Disadvantages: a little more time taken to do two polls.


Since we have lots of time, let's nail down language for all the proposals and run a poll to select which one has the most support, and then another poll for ratification. We need to target 1/22 for completion of the whole process, to allow plenty of time for correct nominations to be posted.

Let's have a proponent of each option bring it forward in rough draft legal format. The ensuing discussion can fine-tune it and we can aim for a poll lasting 3 days starting 1/13. Then the winning proposal can be submitted for ratification for 4 days ending 1/20. This leaves us 2 days to address any issues which might come up.

Any comments on the proposed process, before we get started on the actual change itself?

I think we can post a poll for the concepts themselves right now, and then submit the winner for ratification. I would say:

1. One multiple-choice poll for the whole branch with no vote limit.

2. Separate polls for CJ and AJ, with the AJ poll being multi-choice(no limit)

3. Separate polls for all three positions.

Also, keep in mind that allowing a candidate to run for both CJ and AJ in Option 2 may be unconstitutional. And dreiche2, I don't think we would be able to hold elections at different times, so unfortunately your Option 2 would probably not pan out. Sorry. :(

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Also, keep in mind that allowing a candidate to run for both CJ and AJ in Option 2 may be unconstitutional.

oh, so do we have to clarify this in advance, or will we change the law afterwards? (well, after the ratification poll is too late, of course)

i any case we have to specify this in the poll, because the possibility to run for several position would be an important aspect of the new election procedure. it also applies to option 3 i think. (a splitting of the above options or a second poll about this might even be neccessary :(?)

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

And dreiche2, I don't think we would be able to hold elections at different times, so unfortunately your Option 2 would probably not pan out. Sorry. :(

well, if you say so, but this at least narrows my favored options down...

EDIT: or on a second thought, DZ, did you mean that the option to run for several positions should left out right away?

dreiche2,

To allow a candidate to run in multiple elections within the same branch will require changes to the current laws. Please read through the CoS election stuff - for right now that can be found in either the Poll sub-fourm (CoS Section X - Election - or something like that) or the Citizen syub-forum (DG4 Election Process, or something like that). I leave finding the actual threads as an exercise for the reader.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire and others:

I have been reading through the whole constitution and I couldn't find something about running for multiple positions being illegal (as long as you dont accept multiple positions in the end). Can someone help me out?

On the other hand, this line

"
A7.c
No citizen will vote more than once in the same poll
"

could be in conflict with multiple-choice polls, even if it probably wasn't its intention to address them.

?

Try looking here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?threadid=73286).

Specifically, D and D.1.

-- Ravensfire

As an interesting option, we could try an experiment. Create a sample poll, with sample candidates and positions and request the citizens to vote in this poll.

Let's try out some of these ideas and see how they would actually work.

For some parameters, I would suggest a field of 3-4 candidates interested in the CJ position, and 6-8 candidates for the AJ positions (including CJ candidates above).

-- Ravensfire.

A poll on the options has been created here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75147)

The poll on which option for electing the jucidiary would be preferred has closed, with very strong support for the multi-choice option.

Let's do a little fine tuning of the CoS amendment for judicial elections, and go through the remainder of the amendment process.

Here is an excellent proposal from earlier in the thread, with slight modifications..

III. Polling
1. Judiciary exceptions:
i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
ii. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
a. 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. This poll shall last for 2 days. The person
receiving the 2nd most votes in the poll if there are two
candidates tied shall be an Associate Justice. If there are
three or more candidates tied, the 2nd and 3rd place shall
be Associate Justices.
iii. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate
Justices, unless a tie existed for 1st most votes. If there
are two tied for 1st, the 3rd place from the original multi
choice poll shall be Associate Justice. If three or more tie
for 1st in the multi-choice poll, the associate justices shall
be determined as specified in foregoing section 1.ii.a.
iv. Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees tied for that
position shall be listed in the run-off poll to determine who shall
be the final Associate Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.
2. At-Large Governors
i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
positions.
a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
cycle.
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. [/QUOTE]

Perhaps to cover all options we should include the possiblity of a tie for second place to go between iii and iv, something like:

Should a tie exist for 2nd, in the case of a two way tie
both candidates shall be Associate Justices. In the case of a tie
with more than two candidates, only those nominees tied for
2nd shall be listed in a run-off poll, the top two of which shall
be Associate Justices. This poll shall last for 2 days.

Is there any more discussion on this? I would like to put this forward so that it is the standard for the Term 2 elections.

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Is there any more discussion on this? I would like to put this forward so that it is the standard for the Term 2 elections.

Please feel free to push it through, I'm on a business trip and barely have enough cycles to browse the forum for the next 3 or so days.

The proposal looks good to me as is.

I think both Furiey and DS have sections that are needed for ties in the Associate Justice position, I just think that we can replace them with one clause.


iv. Should a tie exist for either Associate Justice position, where there are more candidates tied than positions available, a run-off poll shall be posted. This poll shall list only the tied candidates and the number of positions available. This poll shall be a single-select poll (standard format), and be open for 24 hours. The candidate(s) with the most votes shall be elected to the position(s).


-- Ravensfire