Here is a starting point for Article G -- discussion?


Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All vacant
elected positions shall be filled by appointment of a
citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Define vacant. And don't say "my skull".

I'll try.

All positions which have no elected citizen after the elections or who have been vacated by the officeholder voluntarily or forcefully shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

- Perhaps we also need a time-span for this.

Well, it depends. Are Ministers going to appoint deputies? If so when/ how soon?

Is the President going to apoint the Ministers? If so when/ how soon? Is it the President that declares an Office "Vacant"? How long must they wait for a deadbeat Minister? Must they wait for the Election Office to declare an Office "Vacant"? Are we going to have Election Office regulations? Where do they fit in the chain of command?

Everything is connected.

Cyc, thats like asking the dictionary people to define Pen without including the word ink ;)

Absent after 48 hours, vacated after 2 turn chat sessions? Unless impeached or resignation of course.

This one as written tripped us up big time in DG4.

I think that runoff elections need to be spelled out somewhere.

Deputies are the runners up according to this poll (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=92642) so we only need appointments for the cases where there was only one candidate (to appoint a deputy, or if the office becomes vacant before one can be appointed), or no candidates (to appoint a leader, and then to appoint a deputy). Oh, also an appointment is needed if a deputy moves up as an effect of the official leaving.

Proposed Article G Poll:


Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. All
elected positions left in absentia for two calender weeks shall be
considered vacent and a deputy will fulfill the remainder of the term.
Should a deputy not be applicable to the position, a bi-election
will be conducted.

I object to the term bi-election, as it flies in the the face of CFC's indecency crackdown. :lol:

Serious now. Can we just say "mid-term election" instead?

On a personal note, I will vote against the ratification of this Article if it includes deputies. Deputies should not be a part of the Constitution IMHO. And they should certainly not be the runner-up from an election, which this Article somewhat implies but does not state.

Does anyone have an objection to deputies being optional?

does my lifestyle offend you DZ :lol:

Upon consideration, there needs to be a poll on the optionality of deputies unless there hasnt been one already.

The article as it stands does not imply deputies are required, as the phrase "if applicable" is contained, as long as If applicable means "not required"

I wasn't going to touch this one as it will prove to be a pain, but....

1. The only positions where a Deputy is not applicable are the Justices. The Vice President is the Deputy President. I believe the Deputies should be appointed, so I'm kind of biased, but the poll says runner-ups will be the Deputies. No way around that.

So if we take out the last sentance because it only applies to the Judiciary, we would need to replace it with something about the CJ covering for the missing Justice, or the President appointing a new one.

Does anyone have an objection to deputies being optional?

Yes, Deputies are important.

A.) provides a position where newer players can gain experience and a reputation in a department. At least in my terms, inactive Deputies were not the result of not having anything to do, I specifically looked for, and asked for my deputy's suggestions.

B.) provides a voice in the instruction thread should the leader be unable to post. Sometimes a leader's inability to post can be unexpected and someone should be inplace to take over the job in that absence. Even if a leader plans to attend, RL can many times unexpectantly interupt that with no warning. (ie. in extreme cases a car accident).

So if we take out the last sentance because it only applies to the Judiciary, we would need to replace it with something about the CJ covering for the missing Justice, or the President appointing a new one.

Or maybe a quick election vote? We could also apply that to all sudden vacancies... however... that does add inefficiency refilling the positions.

Runners up as deputies ensure at least one thing -- the person who gets the job wanted a job in that ministry to begin with. With appointed deputies, I had to go searching for someone to appoint, with spotty results at best.

Yes, Deputies are important.

A.) provides a position where newer players can gain experience and a reputation in a department. At least in my terms, inactive Deputies were not the result of not having anything to do, I specifically looked for, and asked for my deputy's suggestions..


Yes, I remember being nurtured as your Military deputy, and I STILL lost to you the next month. :lol: That said, you raise a good point. I still don't sgree with runner-up in the election as deputy, but hey, at least its not in the Constitution. ;)

Even still, with participation as low as it is should leaders(save the Judiciary, of course) be required to have deputies?

Yes, I remember being nurtured as your Military deputy, and I STILL lost to you the next month. :lol: That said, you raise a good point. I still don't sgree with runner-up in the election as deputy, but hey, at least its not in the Constitution. ;)

Even still, with participation as low as it is should leaders(save the Judiciary, of course) be required to have deputies?

How about this, the Leader must make an attempt to find a deputy (regardless of runner up or appointed track) should the deputy possition be vacant. If the Leader is unable to find any candidates for Deputy, the position of deputy shall remain open until the position shall be filled.

So in otherwords, if lack of participation prohibits a deputy, then there is no negative effect for there being no deputy.

We need to resolve the appointed/runner up issue though....

How about this, the Leader must make an attempt to find a deputy (regardless of runner up or appointed track) should the deputy possition be vacant. If the Leader is unable to find any candidates for Deputy, the position of deputy shall remain open until the position shall be filled.

So in otherwords, if lack of participation prohibits a deputy, then there is no negative effect for there being no deputy.

We need to resolve the appointed/runner up issue though....

I like the concept of making the deputy optional -- and truth be known in DG4 there were multiple terms where many offices had no deputies.

The runner up issue was already solved in a poll. If we are to follow the WOTP and avoid judicial battles it needs to be written into the law. Gotta either put it into the Constitution, or have a CoL. :(

DS Optional in what sence?

The sence that I stated, or the sence that a Leader can say "I don't need no stinking deputy!"?

Yes, the people are overwhelmingly in favour of runner ups being the deputies.

They will it, Ill write it. Whether I agree or not.,

The runner up issue was already solved in a poll. If we are to follow the WOTP and avoid judicial battles it needs to be written into the law. Gotta either put it into the Constitution, or have a CoL. :(

We can try to ratify the Article with it in there, but I will vocally fight it. It's not a law yet, Dave. Besides, it was a very close vote so acceptance is not a foregone conclusion.

Okay, let's remember the vacant Deputiship due to particpation issue....

how about this wording.

Should there not be a runner up in an election (an uncontested election), the elected leader shall appoint a deputy. If no suitable deputy can be found, the deputy position shall remain vacant until a suitable deputy is found or until the next election cycle.


meh, okay seeing DZ's post here's an alternative version, basically eliminating the "runner up portion"

If a leader can not find a suitable deputy, the deputy position shall remain vacant until a suitable deputy is found or until the next election cycle.


please note this is not intended to REPLACE the article but to be inserted in where appropriate.

Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month. All
elected positions left in absentia for two calender weeks shall be
considered vacent. The deputy will fulfill the remainder of the term
as it is the runner-up in the election. In absence of a runner-up an
appointed citizen shall be the deputy.


Removed sentence: If no suitable deputy can be found, a moderator supervised mid-term election will be conducted.

Nah, take out that last sentance, Immortal. It doesn't work.

DS Optional in what sence?

The sence that I stated, or the sence that a Leader can say "I don't need no stinking deputy!"?

The lack of participation one, of course! ;)

Post #20 works for me.

Oopps. we still didn't cover a Justice that disappears. There are no Judicial Deputies. The Nomination threads state this:

All members of the judiciary share several traditional rights and responsibilities:

Do not have Deputies but may appoint Pro-Tem justicesif they are unable to fulfill their duties. Pro-Tem officials have all of the rights and responsibilities of the officials they are filling in for but are a temporary position and must surrender their pro-tem status upon the request of the official.

This covers a Justice that knows and posts that they will be leaving. But what about Justices who just disappear? The CJ or President should appoint. No combo votes this time. Just one or the other.

Im inclined to support the President as to avoid any meddling done by the judiciary if the CJ appoints a "favourable" candidate and forces a judicial review of something they want overturned.

Just like the Bushes have done with the Supreme Court? (Daddy and G-Dub)

It can happen with the Presidents too. Trust me. But I'll support your choice of going with the President.

Thankfully, our Court doesnt have the same kind of teeth your American supreme court does. :cool:

Ours (fanatika, not canada) traditionally requires 2/3 judges to make a ruling, I hesitate to give the CJ the ability to appoint whomever they wish, and automatically have that 2/3 quorum.

Just like the Bushes have done with the Supreme Court? (Daddy and G-Dub)

It can happen with the Presidents too. Trust me. But I'll support your choice of going with the President.

Not to go off topic here, but out of the current Supreme Court Justices, 2 were appointed by Bush Sr. and 2 by Clinton, NONE by the current Bush.
Out of the rest 3 by Reagan, 1 by Ford, and 1 by Nixon.
Biographies of Supreme Court Justices (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/about/biographiescurrent.pdf)
Yes, mostly conservative, but certainly not stacked by the Bushes.



Anyway, back on topic, I think we should likely have a midterm election. The Justices shouldn't be called for TOO often, hopefully. And if you go with the US government as an example Congress must approve each nomination, and thus we'd more or less skip the step of the Presidential nomination.

Poll for ratification now open:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=94833