Now that the constitution is (almost) finished and ratified, I would like to throw in the air an idea of a law or amendment regarding the number of offices a citizen can run for each term. The purpose of this thread is for discussion of the idea, and if it is accepted to work out the wording (Since currently i suppose citizens will have to submit the wording of an amendment since we have no congress or executive branch :-D). Feel free to express your opinions regarding what to do about the problem (it is a problem) of having 6 or 8 people running for an office.

Even though I am currently actively running for two positions and at one time was considering 3, I support limiting the number of candidacies to 1 office per person. This would decrease the number of citizens running for each office and more importantly provide means for achieving a majority of support for one candidate. It is necissary for us to decide on a way to limit the number of people running for an office as a candidate who wins with only 21% of the vote (currently the case for science minister) not only is illogical, it also rips at the seam of our constitution. If a near majority (at LEAST 40%) of citizens did not support a candidate in the election, how can we be certain this is the true will of the people?

Also, with no limit on number of candidacies, this method skims close to violating Constitution Article H. If someone wins two or three elections, there is no process regarding acceptances. Having the winners virtually choose which positions to resign from and which one to keep is very prone to favoritism. For example. If I ran for two things and won both elections i would have to choose one thing to be. In my first poll, CT, immortal, daveshack, etc was in second and in the other, which I won against a REAL newbie other than myself, It would be wrong in my opinion to allow me to choose to accept the position i want, and allow the experienced player to have the other one, or to accept the other position and allow the newbie to have one. This is bending the will of the people, who elected ME for a position and it is unlawful to allow any elected official (with the exception of judges in an official case) to name the winner of another election!

The current lack of rules governing our election procedure is unsatisfactory. Action must be taken, and i propose either:
1. Limiting citizens to run for one, two, three...etc. offices only.
2. Keep the current unlimited procedure, but create a law for a runoff procedure to ensure the right candidate wins.

I full will heartedly use my new Article A rights to express grievances as shown :-D

Thanks, and DISCUSS NOW!
KCC

the first point you make is obviously, my contention.

If we're going to allow multiple nominations (I am willing to support up to 3 nominations per person, although I'd go with 2) I think we need the nominees to nominate a preferred order. For example, if I run for President, CJ and Science Advisor, I have to list them in the order I prefer, and if I win all 3, I automatically get elected to my advised first preference, and get scratched from the other elections.

This would work better with a preferential voting system, as if I am scratched from an election, what happens to those people who voted for me? Do their votes become void?

I can see a runoff procedure turning into a lengthy process. To me preferential voting is the obvious solution, but this can't currently be implemented in the forums, we would have to use an external website, which might not be that bad an idea.

The current system does not address what happens when people "lose" their votes, as the result of their chosen candidate being elected to another office

@CivMan 2004 - all your concerns can be remedied by limiting nom acceptance to one per term. We have enough people to make this work, and citizens can take pride in the fact that they are not hedging their bets come election time.

I am totally against a lenghty runoff system as well. Our election timeframe is long enough as it is. :)

I definitely support one office nomination per candidate. The way it stands right now, people are running for the office they want, but hedging their bets by running for multiple offices. This is pure power-mongering in my opinion. Hey, if you don't get the high office that you run for, there are other, lesser offices that will come into being. It needs to be about service to the nation, not about being in charge.

I agree. Prior to the elections, I campaigned for "1 Person/ 1 Office Nomination". But the peoplw voted against it because they were afraid of losing their place in Government. Therefore I took advantage of the situation they created and ran for 3 Offices. I still say let's restrict each person to accepting 1 Nomination. It's the proper way to do things.

let this be a lesson to be recorded in Demogame history: Sometimes, there are good rules from the last constitution.

This is partially why I support a staggered voting system - advisor then deputy 2 weeks later. As it is, if you miss out on your chosen position, you have to wait a month before you can run for anything else, which does seem a bit harsh.

The other difficulty will be that once someone sees a strong candidate up for a certain position, they won't contest it - they'll go for something they think they have more of a chance in, and the strong candidate could well march through unopposed. I'm hardly going to nominate if I see chieftess or immortal, etc, having already accepted the nomination.

I think there should be various rulesets for each term, as dictated by both the number of provinces and the number of ministry and deputy seats. Term one has only one province and several ministry positions, where term 5 may have several provinces.

I think everyone should be able to run for President and governor in a province, but each player must state what province they live in well before the election campaign, so no one speculates in cammpaigning in provinces with less candidates. Presidential races should have a running mate, so that the alternatives can be all over the forums.

To make the governor job more attractive, give the governor control of the police units keeping order in the cities, job specialties in the cities and infrastructure like airports, radar, fortresses and so on. Maybe also a small standing force like the national guard watching the province internally. In larger empires, the Domestic and Military ministers may have their hands full, so this management can be given away.

let this be a lesson to be recorded in Demogame history: Sometimes, there are good rules from the last constitution.
Indeed. Put this in!

This is partially why I support a staggered voting system - advisor then deputy 2 weeks later. As it is, if you miss out on your chosen position, you have to wait a month before you can run for anything else, which does seem a bit harsh.

This might work, but I have a feeling that it will break up the flow of the game. Besides, you'd be suprised at how fast a Term goes by. :)

The other difficulty will be that once someone sees a strong candidate up for a certain position, they won't contest it - they'll go for something they think they have more of a chance in, and the strong candidate could well march through unopposed. I'm hardly going to nominate if I see chieftess or immortal, etc, having already accepted the nomination.

I've been saying this to the game vets for years now. This is exactly the reason that I chose to be Mayor of Gorina in DG3. I wanted my absense in the ballots to be openings for the newer players. It's also why I've been sticking to the Judiciary (besides try to apply my knowledge).

I think there should be various rulesets for each term, as dictated by both the number of provinces and the number of ministry and deputy seats. Term one has only one province and several ministry positions, where term 5 may have several provinces.

I think everyone should be able to run for President and governor in a province, but each player must state what province they live in well before the election campaign, so no one speculates in cammpaigning in provinces with less candidates. Presidential races should have a running mate, so that the alternatives can be all over the forums.

I believe both of these ideas are a little too complicated for this game. One ruleset for the whole game works best. Localized elections (running for your Province of Redience) have been discussed for two Demogames and not been approved. Running for President with a running mate has also been discussed and may be accepted in the future, but hasn't had over-whelming success yet. And I believe 1 Office and 1 Nomination per person will prevail.

I disagree with the One Person - One Nomination, but feel there should be a limit set at 2/3, otherwise, people will run only for the most favoured jobs and not for the others so some offices will have 15 candidates, some 2.

Surely, we should set a minimum of 50% (or whatever is agreed) as to the votes to get into an office, if this means taking the top two candidates from a previous poll and having a second poll then do it this way, this would also allow you to eliminate the candidates who have gained two positions and rejected one so that 2nd place doesnt get in but still has to have a run off against 3rd who may be more popular with the people who originally voted for 1st place. - Am I making sense?

Just noted a similar decision is happening here (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95214)

Making it impossible to self nominate should help things, by weeding out those who have no real chance in the first place. If they did, then someone else would nominate them for them. The reason why so many people were candidates was because so many were self-nominated.

You can simply ask someone to nominate for you and they will, it doesnt really address anything.

Nomination cap is still preferable.

I think that self-nomination is important for the new players. It gives them a chance to be part of something. A new player who cannot nominate him/herself will never get to run in an election since no one else will nominate them.

I think that self-nomination is important for the new players. It gives them a chance to be part of something. A new player who cannot nominate him/herself will never get to run in an election since no one else will nominate them.

Exactly. I could well be wrong, but I doubt that KCCrusader would have a chance at being our Term 1 PD if he hadn't nominated himself.

Not all of us "newbies" want an office right of the bat, but for some it makes sense.

Exactly. I could well be wrong, but I doubt that KCCrusader would have a chance at being our Term 1 PD if he hadn't nominated himself.

agreed :-D

Self-nomination: yes indeed! I got my first position that way. :)

Allowing multiple accepted nominations: This goes both ways. If we limit nominations to one, as soon as two experienced players accept for the same office, one is guaranteed to be out of office for that term. This might on the surface be an advantage for new players, but if the popular people can't go head to head for this reason, they might end up all running for different positions and winning all the positions and then the new players are left out.

I wholeheartedly support limiting a citizen to running in only one election. For the Term 1 elections, I only voted for candidates that were running for only one office.

Let's pass a law limiting citizen's to running for one office.

The best thing about limiting candidacies to one per person is that with this many people, the government will likely change on a regular basis, which is certainly a good thing for the game.

Article H
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously.
1.No person shall accept the nomination to more than one position
of leadership in any election where the two offices would be
held concurrently.
2.A run-off election shall be required only in the event that the
top vote-getter in an election does not receive
a.At least 35% of the votes cast, and
b.A margin of victory of at least 5 percentage points over
their leading opponent.


The wording in bold type would amend the Article.
The amendment would replace the current Article H., which states:


Article H
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.


I know there are many differing opinions on this subject, so lets discuss them and try to arrive at a consensus.

The numbers are completely up in the air, but I had to start somewhere. And yes, I have made my opinions known on pluralities vs majorities. You'll notice that I also added Vice-President and Deputy to the list of offices. That would be to constitutionally address a current situation.

I've already seen a problem with the wording I used. Sub-paragraph 2b. should be amended to:

"A margin of victory of at least 5 percentage points over their leading opponent, except in the case where a majority of votes have been cast for the top vote-getter."

... or words to that effect.

Comnenus, I agree, but would recommend setting the percentage to 30 %, as we still have many candidates.

It probably does not need to be said, but I'll state the obvious anyway, this does not apply to the current election.

Comnenus, I agree, but would recommend setting the percentage to 30 %, as we still have many candidates.

My reasoning for 35% was to put it above 1/3 of the electorate. However, lets hear opinions on the percentage and we can then decide.

I agree to the Amendments proposed by Comnenus. As i said in another thread the idea of one person-two posts is something that doesnt sit well with me.

The 35% (more than 1/3) sounds good. Since the number of voting citizens isnt the as large as most electoral codes are made for, the 35% (in practice a 1/3+1) is fine by me.

I agree with what Commenus wrote above. However, if we limit nominations to one per person, stating the Deputy position becomes redundant, since a person can only run in one election, they cannot be both Deputy and something else. I realize this is because of the current situation, but since this will not apply to the current election, we might as well keep it as clean as possible. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to just leave it there in the event that the 1 nomination/person rule needs to bo overturned (due to low participation for example).

I would also like to suggest that an exception to the nomination rule be made for the Justice Deparment. In other words, someone who is running in the Justice Department can run for all three positions. This would prevent a case where person A loses to person B by one vote for CJ, but is not on the Judiciary even though the PD and JA have much fewer votes. Obviously a large number of people wanted person A in the justice system.

I do not know if this can be implemented on the forum, but my suggestion would be to have all the candidates for the judicial positions in one vote, and have every citizen vote for three of them. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election gets to choose which position he/she will fill (CJ, JA, PD); the one with the second most votes gets to choose from the remaining two; and the third place finisher takes the final position.

... if we limit nominations to one per person, stating the Deputy position becomes redundant, since a person can only run in one election, they cannot be both Deputy and something else. I realize this is because of the current situation, but since this will not apply to the current election, we might as well keep it as clean as possible. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to just leave it there in the event that the 1 nomination/person rule needs to bo overturned (due to low participation for example).

Perhaps we could change it to "no person shall accept the nomination or appointment to more than one position of leadership in any term where the two offices would be held concurrently"

... my suggestion would be to have all the candidates for the judicial positions in one vote, and have every citizen vote for three of them. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election gets to choose which position he/she will fill (CJ, JA, PD); the one with the second most votes gets to choose from the remaining two; and the third place finisher takes the final position.

I could accept this, or some form of it. I am not certain if this would be the right Article to put it in or not.

Perhaps we could change it to "no person shall accept the nomination or appointment to more than one position of leadership in any term where the two offices would be held concurrently"

Good point. We still haven't determined if deputies are going to be appointed or if they will be the runner-up of the elections. In any event, I support this change.

I could accept this, or some form of it. I am not certain if this would be the right Article to put it in or not.

I have looked through the Constitution, and I have seen no article that details the necessary protocols for the electoral process. Are the rules governing elections going to be in some form of lower law? Or should they be a part of the Constitution? In fact, are there even any written rules on the elections?

These questions are not aimed specifically at Commenus, anyone who knows is welcome to answer.

Again, I don't like numbered items in an Article of the Constitution, but as they make clarification much easier for our discussions, I'll drop the point. I strongly disagree with #2. I feel the only time we should have run-off elections is when there is a tie for first and/or second place in the original or subsequent election. The second place tie would be pending on the legislation concerning Deputies and how they attain Office.

Both the Article and item #1 are spot on and well written.

I strongly disagree with #2. I feel the only time we should have run-off elections is when there is a tie for first and/or second place in the original or subsequent election. The second place tie would be pending on the legislation concerning Deputies and how they attain Office.


Point of clarification, is this a personal opinion or a legal opinion, ie, is it open to debate?

I think point 1 could be read to say that I am locked into the first nomination I accept. How about:

1) A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one nomination in any election cycle. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance when creating the election ballots.

I do not support point 2 at all. The only run-off elections should be when the is a tie for 1st or 2nd place in an election.

edit: thanks to Cyc for pointing out that I do not support point 2.

Point of clarification, is this a personal opinion or a legal opinion, ie, is it open to debate?

:D This is definitely a personal opinion. I will make it very clear if I feel I need to make an official ruling. You will probably not see this out side of the Judicial thread. But then again, you might.

I think point 1 could be read to say that I am locked into the first nomination I accept. How about:

1) A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one nomination in any election cycle. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance when creating the election ballots.

I do support point 2 at all. The only run-off elections should be when the is a tie for 1st or 2nd place in an election.

Good item #1, zorven. I remember you proposed this last game. It would probably be more encompassing than the one posted above. I say let's use this one, as it covers the same point as the other plus more. Plus allows a back door for a newbie who might change their mind. ;)

Also, I believe the last sentance should be saying "I do NOT, rather than I DO". Am I correct?

What I find interesting is that it is assumed that one must have a position in the government. So what if some people get left out of the government? This game is about the nation as a whole. I will stress the point that one does not need to have an elected position to make a difference in this game. If someone losses out at the elections, that's fine. There's always next term, and in the intervening time, they can still actively participate.

One person, one nomination. Seriously, why take a job when you can just sit back and make everyone else do the work for you? :p

Excellent point Octavian X. It has often been someone not in government that has had a large impact on how the game played out.

Why don't we simplify the Article H amendment to read the following:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall accept the nomination to more
than one elected position.

If this is acceptable, we can cover the run-off mechanics of the election in yet-to-be-ratified Article G (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246). This makes more sense since Article G defines the electoral term itself while Article H here merely imposes restrictions on the electoral process.

I am working on Article G next. :)

What I find interesting is that it is assumed that one must have a position in the government. So what if some people get left out of the government? This game is about the nation as a whole. I will stress the point that one does not need to have an elected position to make a difference in this game. If someone losses out at the elections, that's fine. There's always next term, and in the intervening time, they can still actively participate.

One person, one nomination. Seriously, why take a job when you can just sit back and make everyone else do the work for you? :p

Absolutely. I didn't run for an office. Didn't want to my first time out because I would rather learn the ropes. And still, I made my share of mistakes here. :blush: But still I'm doin' stuff. I'll just leave the really hard work to the masochists. :D

BTW, I just got off work. I'll be working on the updates for this thread soon.

Why don't we simplify the Article H amendment to read the following:

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall accept the nomination to more
than one elected position.

If this is acceptable, we can cover the run-off mechanics of the election in yet-to-be-ratified Article G (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246). This makes more sense since Article G defines the electoral term itself while Article H here merely imposes restrictions on the electoral process.

I am working on Article G next. :)

I have the same problem with this as I stated above: it can be read to limit you to the first nomination you accept - you can't change your mind. If you want an amendment to look like this proposal, it would have to read more like: :

"nor shall be allowed to be a candidate in more than one election in any given election cycle."

I have the same problem with this as I stated above: it can be read to limit you to the first nomination you accept - you can't change your mind. If you want an amendment to look like this proposal, it would have to read more like: :

"nor shall be allowed to be a candidate in more than one election in any given election cycle."

I agree with you zorven. I am going to be working on changes due to the input received, and will be posting them tonight.

I have the same problem with this as I stated above: it can be read to limit you to the first nomination you accept - you can't change your mind. If you want an amendment to look like this proposal, it would have to read more like: :

"nor shall be allowed to be a candidate in more than one election in any given election cycle."

How about this? I think this is worded to allow citizens to change their mind during the nom cycle, so long as they have only one nom going into the election. I can add the other part about the first accepted nom if you feel it warranted, but I believe since this rule would forbid multiple noms, this can be implied.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted
nomination at the commencement of the general election.

Oh, BTW, I have sumitted a proposal for Article G that addresses some of the issues with the recent elections.

How about this? I think this is worded to allow citizens to change their mind during the nom cycle, so long as they have only one nom going into the election. I can add the other part about the first accepted nom if you feel it warranted, but I believe since this rule would forbid multiple noms, this can be implied.

Article H. No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall have more than one accepted
nomination at the commencement of the general election.

Looks good to me, but I have been looking this over for awhile and noticed one thing. What if we change the first clause to: "No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership in the Executive, Legislative, or Judicial branches,"

This would take care of unforseen offices which might arise in the future.

Article H.
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership in the
Executive, Legislative or Judicial branches simultaneously,
nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
commencement of the general election.

Since you're going beddy-bye, DZ, I thought I would write up my suggested change for discussion.

I really like the amendment so far except for #2. I think that a run-off is a last resort and should be held for ties only. In cases of close elections, mods seem to validate the votes anyway, at least this was done in the Term 1- Military Advisor race. In which one voter was deemed illegal, thus a tie was broken. I don't think that close races will have problem if this review continues.

@KCC - As far as I know, Article H has now evolved into what is shown in either Post #42 or #44. Runoffs are now addressed in the Article G thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246)(which has yet to be ratified), which is still in discussion mode.

Yes, I have read the whole thread now :-D

I like the Proposed Amendment in post #42 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2055955&postcount=43) the best, as it seems more inclusive than just naming Branches. That way there is less of a chance for changes that may not be apparent to us.

I actually forgot to respond to Comnenus' proposal. :blush: And I do agree with Cyc that the more information the better, especially with our current bare bones ruleset.

I don't have any problem with 42, so I don't think we should revise it any further. Personally, I'd say it's ready to go to the polls.

I actually forgot to respond to Comnenus' proposal. :blush: And I do agree with Cyc that the more information the better, especially with our current bare bones ruleset.

I think actually that the version I posted contains more information. Less words, but more information as it includes offices that we don't foresee. However, in the hopes of getting this passed, I will forego any objections to the version posted in #42.

Vote Now (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95842) on this Proposed Amendment to Article H.