There have been quite a few discussions on deputies and how to fit vacancies. This thread will serve as the official discussion on those topics.

Here is the starting point example from the general discussion thread.

Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term. The runner
up in each election (if one exists) shall be the deputy for
that position. Any office which is left vacant at the end
of an election due to no candidates accepting a nomination
or due to all candidates withdrawing shall be filled by
appointment by the highest ranking leader of a citizen to
fill the position. Any elected position which becomes
permanently vacant, such that the official will not return,
shall be filled first by the deputy for that position, or by
appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.
Vacant deputy positions shall be filled by appointment by the
leader of a citizen to fill the deputy position.


From Epimethius, this article touches on some of the points

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership
in the same branch of givernment simultaneously. No person
may be a leader of one office and deputy of a different office
in the same branch simultaneously. The President, Vice
President and Chief Justice may not hold any other
elected office or deputy position.


From Ravensfire, all the concepts plus a little more, in several Articles

Article D. Terms and Appointments
All elected positions have a fixed term of one month,
beginning on the first day of the month (GMT), and must be
filled by a citizen of Fanatica. All elected officials,
except the Judiciary, shall appoint as deputy a citizen.
All elected positions that become vacant must be filled by
appointing the deputy to that office, or should no deputy
exist for that position, any citizen, by the President to
fulfill the remainder of the term.

Vacancies in the Judiciary will be filled by the President
and the remaining members of the Judiciary acting in
concert to appoint citizens to the Judiciary.

Article E. Elections
Elections for all Executive Branch, Judicial Branch and
Provincial Governorships shall be held monthly. Elections
shall be conducted by the Election Office and supervised by
the Judiciary. Nominations and debates will open 7 days
before the new term. Election polls being posted 4 days
before the new term and will remain open for 3 days.
Citizens will be allowed to run for more than two offices in
any given term.

There will be one poll for each office. The Judiciary
election will be a single poll for all choices, configured
as a multiple choice poll, with the candidate receiving
the most votes becoming the Chief Justice.

All ties are to be handled by run-off elections initiated
immediately following the close of the initial polls and
will last for two days. This process may be repeated as
needed.

Article F. Multiple Offices
No citizen shall hold multiple positions of leadership
(President, Minister, Justice, Provincial Governor, or
deputy for those positions) simultaneously, whether elected
or appointed to the position.


Points for discussion:


Should we have runners-up as deputies, appointed deputies, or no deputies?
Should we let people hold more than one office, in particular leader in one branch and deputy in another?
How should vacancies be handled? Can we please define exactly when a vacancy occurs so we don't have a repeat of the DG4T1 judicial elections?
Any thing else?

Article G looks good. It deals with Vacancies well, but I don't care for the way Deputies are put into service. Article D covers this much better.

I don't care for the "in the same branch of givernment simultaneously" aspect of Article H, and I believe Article F handles that situation much better.

Article E doesn't sit that well with me as I don't think the Judiciary should oversee the Elections (see DG4T1). I believe the Moderators should oversse the elections. We DEFINATELY need to get some regulations going on the Election Office if they are to be used. Also, citizens should only be able to run for one Office each Term. We need to keep these Vet players from running for 2 or 3 Offices at a time and saturating the ballots. That kind of action discourages new players from running for Office. Plus it's a little sissy way of obtaining Office. Just pick an Office you want to run for and do it. Running for 2 or more Offices, hoping you'll be lucky enough to snag one is a sorry means of gaining a political positon.

I personaly like Artical G

I knew you were going to say that CG. :)

But, what if, say, an elected official disappears before appointing a deputy? Just imagine the chaos (Serlie province, T5). I see that still no one's given thought to my proposal: Having the deputy be the runner-up until the Leader appoints one.

i think articles D-F sums up the election process better

Please identify the proposals by their author. Think I've got them straight, but not positive. :crazyeye:

Actually, Noldodan, your proposal is the way I'd like to see it. The Deputy position would be covered immediately, but niether the Leader or the Deputy would be trapped into accepting the situation. It's a good proposal.

Runner up. Make the leader live with a runner up he doesn't like. Then he wouldn't be so inclined to leave. ;)

I knew you were going to say that CG. :)
I wonder why you said that Cyc ;).

Anyway. In looking over on the suggested articles for elections. I would personaly have to disagree with Article H. I feel that a persion should hold a deputy and a leader possition but make it restrictive that the persion should only hold 1 deputy possition if one is a leader.

I don't know. I think that, for too long, we've degraded the status of the deputy. In the past, these positions were always easy to come by, mainly because they came as a result of an unfavorable result in and election.

It seems to me that the best way we can increase participation is to both have deputies appointed, or maybe even elected outright just as a normal ministerial position is. Also, a person shouldn't be a leader and deputy at the same time. This makes one actually have to work to get and hold on to the deputy's spot.

In short, the leader and deputy should have to be active citizens in their respective departments. Using the runner up system, and allowing one to hold leader/deputy spots simultaneously does not further this goal.

If we had a big enough supply of citizens willing to do work, there would be no need to contemplate letting someone be a leader in one branch and a deputy in another, or even hold multiple leader positions. If we went back to 6 ministers / advisors, we need a minimum of 19 active players to fill every leadership and deputy position (president, vp, 6 leaders, 6 deputies, 3 justices, 1 governor, 1 deputy governor). Add in the F&L position and we need 21. For most of DG4 we went with most deputy positions open, and in fact there were terms where at least one of the advisor positions went unfilled for a good percentage of the term.

I wonder why you said that Cyc ;).

Anyway. In looking over on the suggested articles for elections. I would personaly have to disagree with Article H. I feel that a persion should hold a deputy and a leader possition but make it restrictive that the persion should only hold 1 deputy possition if one is a leader.
I am also hoping that the ability to sack deputies that do not do their job be included somewhere in this constitution.

I am also hoping that the ability to sack deputies that do not do their job be included somewhere in this constitution.
I personaly dont see the need to have the ability to sack deputies that do not do there job. If that was done, then it would discurage any new players from staying.

I personaly dont see the need to have the ability to sack deputies that do not do there job. If that was done, then it would discurage any new players from staying.
:eek: Then a deputy could do bogus stuff and it would require weeks(hopefully not) for a CC to go through

:eek: Then a deputy could do bogus stuff and it would require weeks(hopefully not) for a CC to go through
Though my reasons against sacking deputies came from experiance when (I wont name any people) someone posted a refusal poll on me to sack me as Lt Govenor when term 2 just started (Jan 31, 2004).

Though my reasons against sacking deputies came from experiance when (I wont name any people) someone posted a refusal poll on me to sack me as Lt Govenor when term 2 just started (Jan 31, 2004).
I remember that, And I remember who it was. The reason I would want to sack a deputy I would have is if I told them to post instructions, and they did not do it. I would want to remove them for not doing their job as a deputy can be a great asset to a leader or completely useless.

I remember that, And I remember who it was. The reason I would want to sack a deputy I would have is if I told them to post instructions, and they did not do it. I would want to remove them for not doing their job as a deputy can be a great asset to a leader or completely useless.
I would understand on sacking a deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions if the leader asked the deputy. But what if the deputy had a good reason for not posting the instructions such as an emergency medical duties in his/her family. I personaly dont want to sack the deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions once with an excuse. Personaly, I am a forgiving persion and would give the deputy two chances so long as there is a reasonable excuse.

I also fear that sacking deputies would be used for the wrong reasons for just getting rid of a deputy dispite what happened in the past (The attempt to sack me as Lt Govnenor at the start of the Elections). As I said before, I am a forgiving persion and will give a persion a chance in every turn to redeam him/herself. I personaly dont want to sack my deputy because of his/her past of not doing a good job. If he/she is going to commit to doing a good job and redeam themselves, I would give them a chance.

I remember that, And I remember who it was.

You can name names. It won't hurt my feelings. Yes, it was me who asked for the refusal poll against CG. My memory is just as long as anyone elses. Perhaps I was inspired by something that had happened in an earlier incarnation when CG was my deputy...

You can name names. It won't hurt my feelings. Yes, it was me who asked for the refusal poll against CG. My memory is just as long as anyone elses. Perhaps I was inspired by something that had happened in an earlier incarnation when CG was my deputy...
inspired? Do I want to know about this? :p

I would understand on sacking a deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions if the leader asked the deputy. But what if the deputy had a good reason for not posting the instructions such as an emergency medical duties in his/her family. I personaly dont want to sack the deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions once with an excuse. Personaly, I am a forgiving persion and would give the deputy two chances so long as there is a reasonable excuse.

I also fear that sacking deputies would be used for the wrong reasons for just getting rid of a deputy dispite what happened in the past (The attempt to sack me as Lt Govnenor at the start of the Elections). As I said before, I am a forgiving persion and will give a persion a chance in every turn to redeam him/herself. I personaly dont want to sack my deputy because of his/her past of not doing a good job. If he/she is going to commit to doing a good job and redeam themselves, I would give them a chance.
I think when It comes to sacking there must be a just cause to the sack. "I dont like them" is not a just cause. Naturally, if the deputy cannot do their job doe to real-life issues then they are excused. However, if they are able to do the instructions, are asked to do them and yet do not.... then there should be an option sent to the President asking if the deputy can be sakced and replaced by someone appointed by the President or if the President allows it, the Minister themself.

I wish to thank Sarevok for getting back on topic.

Anyway, Back on track.

If the option to be sent to the president or if the president allows the minister to sack the deputy. There should be a system of checks and ballances so that this power to sack deputies is not to be abused.

I would suggest two options.
1. A council vote where all of the ministers vote on the sacking of the deputy in question
2. A Public Poll where the citizens vote on the sacking of the deputy in question (Simmiler to the leader removal poll that we have currently)

Oviously only one of the options would be used so I decided to just throw out into the open the solutions on the preventive measure on the abuse of power on sacking deputies.

I think that option 2 is the best option.

I would like to settle this with several polls, then we can write the article using the results of the polls.

Should we have deputies? yes/no/abstain

How should deputies be chosen?

runner-up in election
leader appoints
edit: runner-up in election, but leader allowed to appoint someone instead
"running mate" -- leader and deputy elected as a team
separate election
other
abstain


Should people be allowed to fill more than one office?
Cumulative voting -- if all "YES" options add up to more than "NO" option, then yes option with highest vote total wins. If no exceeds all YES combined, then no multiple offices.

Yes - 1 leader and 1 deputy position
Yes - 1 leader, 1 deputy in different branch (governors treated as legislative for the purposes of divisions)
Yes - any combination except president and chief justice
No
Abstain


Any comments on this plan?

Dave, your "how should deputies be chosen" poll lacks my suggestion.

Dave, your "how should deputies be chosen" poll lacks my suggestion.

OK, I edited in this alternative.

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.
Indeed it did.

But then, so did the poll on the 5CC, and its supporters brought that back twice. ;)

But then, so did the poll on the 5CC, and its supporters brought that back twice. ;)
once! and that was becasue it was in the list of variants

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.

I overlooked that poll, thanks for pointing it out. It's simple enough to write the final draft of the constitution taking into account that poll, and then if enough people are against it to stop ratification we can come back to the issue.

I overlooked that poll, thanks for pointing it out. It's simple enough to write the final draft of the constitution taking into account that poll, and then if enough people are against it to stop ratification we can come back to the issue.
but what about polling the other issues?

but what about polling the other issues?
The "Should people be allowed to fill more than one office?" has not been written into the polls yet. I beleve that is one of the "other" issues regarding the consitution in this section of the constitution.

No comments against polling some "other issues", so I'll go do that now. :)

We should also poll whether citizens are allowed to participate in more than one election.

I beleve we should. There were variations of this rule since the days of DG 1.
Here are the options I suggest for the polls.


Unlimited
Limited but more than 1 (Set amount to be decided on a later Poll)
A citizen should be in 1 election
Abstain

I beleve we should. There were variations of this rule since the days of DG 1.
Here are the options I suggest for the polls.


Unlimited
Limited but more than 1 (Set amount to be decided on a later Poll)
A citizen should be in 1 election
Abstain

sounds good, get it set up.