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.


Proposal was defeated. It is now the job of those who voted against the article to make it acceptable and repropose it for polling. Please discuss the article.

I voted no on it because I felt the two week absence was far too long to wait to declare a position vancant. I would also like the article to be clarified regarding excused and unexcused absences. For example, if the absence is posted in the absence thread, should the wait be longer as opposed to if a person just didnt show up?

I propose Excused absenses of two weeks or longer should be forced to resign the position, but can enter an early nomination for the next term's elections. The deputy would take over. An honorable discharge so to speak. Whereas unexcused dissappearances should be granted only one week, then should be removed from office and replaced by the deputy.

I would almost support barring from further elections, but that is too extreme even in my book. I think the disappearance would be remembered and used by any of the person's opponents in future elections.

Sorry I joined too late to express my grievances in the FIRST discussion thread.
KCC

Since this section of the constitution needs to be rethought anyway, what do people think about:
1. Elected deputies rather than runner-up from the election
2. Deputies switching mid-term, ie election for position happens on 1st of month, election for deputy happens on 15th of month

I'm a fan of 1 week rather than 2 for absences, and I do like the idea of differentiating between explained and unexplained absences

I think that 1 week would be good :)

Things we should consider, then:

1. Term length. Based on the calendar month, or game turns?

2. Period of time required to be declared in absentia.

3. Deputy selection. Runner up, or appointed?

I'm not going to touch number 1. I really don't care - both systems suit me. As a note, the turn-based term works well in our PTWISDG team.

As for the absentia stuff, I'd say just strike all written time limits. There are too many nuances to be considered in those cases. Allow me to suggest new language: "Should the President consider an offical to be absent, he may promote that official's deputy or, in cases where there is no deputy, appoint another citizen, to officially act in the absent offical's place in order to fulfill all of that official's duties. The absent official may reclaim all of his or her duties upon his stated return."
In a nutshell, the President can promote the deputy or appoint a new citizen to 'acting Minister of whatever/CJ/AJ/PD,' whenever the President feels the elected person is absent. But, when that absent guy returns and posts that he has done so, he can reclaim his job.

I have the following views on game length and turns.
Earlier turns has a larger strategic impact in making the foundation of the empire and later turns are more interesering and intense with more cities, units and technologies in place.

1. Term Length should be progressively built up along the lines along eras. but still must be of predictable nature, so we can arrange elections. A purely turn based system makes it impossible for moderators and justices to run legal cases and arrange elections, as the running of those turns may vary. However, making a hybrid between the two of those would make perfectly sense. In fact, everything revolves around technologies, strategic resources and the ability to build special units.

This means that the strategy crafted by one administration effectively ends with the revelation of a new strategic resource, defining Japans chances to expand. So by dividing terms by the revelation of these techs, we would balance the type of strategy followed, allow to have consistent policies through one term based on that tech and resource, and make the administration accountable for their actions. Did they do well or not with the cards and resources they had been given. In order to generate proper time ahead of an election, it should also be a general rule that strategic resource techs are well planned research goals, so that elections are announced when the research path of the tech preceding the resource tech and the resource tech itself are
announced and fixed. This means low flexibility in the conclusive days of the administration and a smooth transition for the next administration to take over not too much of the old policies of the old administration. Yet, there must be deadlines on this development of terms by resource tech, so creating a window of say 25-35 days would suffice, very close to a month but still flexible except for the inclusion of the resource tech deadline of the administration, announced by the tech dept.


Iron Term 1
Saltpeter Term 2 Gunpowder
Coal Term 3 steam
Oil/rubber Term 4 refining
Aluminium/Uranium Term 5 whichever comes first

2. Period of time required to be declared in absentia
1 week
failure to deliver on defined deadlines agreed on by minister

Deputy selections should be minister appointed, like in real life. Especially if the campaign has been known to see some mudslining or very opposite logics of doctrine.
A minister must have the freedom to organize his own dept. Yet, I see that even if Sarevok and Falcon02 would cooperate very well in the Milli dept, that does not apply to all cases. I think the minister should know what additional skills he needs.
In fact, I may even consider running mates in elections for ministries, so people can select a real management team for each ministry.

the main reason why i voted against this article was the time a pos was allowed to be vacant. 2 weeks is way to much. it should be lowered to 4-5 days.

also, an alternate/deputy should always be present, in order to speed up the sucession of the post.

I would say 6 days total unless documented in the Official Absense thread.

Calendar based Terms.

And appointed.

Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?

*removed*....

A potential problem with provolution's suggestion is that if I'm in a bad administration, who's done a shocking job and is going to get voted out, why should I hurry that up by going for Gunpowder, when it's going to trigger my demise? Better to have a bit more fun, avoid gunpowder and research other things. (Not saying I'd do that, just saying the method is open to manipulation)

A potential problem with provolution's suggestion is that if I'm in a bad administration, who's done a shocking job and is going to get voted out, why should I hurry that up by going for Gunpowder, when it's going to trigger my demise? Better to have a bit more fun, avoid gunpowder and research other things. (Not saying I'd do that, just saying the method is open to manipulation)

I agree. And I am sure that politicians could find many other more subtle ways to manipulate the time they serve.

Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?

I actually agree with you all the way on these, DS, except for the time allotted to a deadbeat. I believe 6 days is a better length, as normally there are two chats a week. We'd go 3 days, have a chat, then go four days and have another. With the six day limit, it will be possible to get Instructions posted for a chat by the deadbeat's replacement. With a 7 day limit, we'd have to wait until the next chat.

Good point, Cyc. I agree with six days.

Originally Posted by: DaveShackHow about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?

I think deputies either need to be set to be the runner-up in the election or appointed. I think allowing the the minister to choose whether or not to keep the runner up sets up the game for bitter relationships and unsportsmanlike decisions. Either Runner-Ups always stay, or deputies are Always appointed.

I do not support electing deputy ministers, as deputy positions are perfect positions for new/unexperienced players to learn not only how to play this version of the demogame, but also how to improve their Civ3 gameplay. If you hold elections, new players are less likely to win the deputy elections. They have a much better chance of taking second place in a general election in my opinion.

Term lengths need to be calendar months. That way everyone knows exactly when the next election will be. There is potential for damaging participation with a turn-based or other non-calendar setup.

The criteria for absent we used in DG4 was actually pretty good: Has not posted instructions in two successive turnchat instruction threads. Effectively this means 6-7 days but being event based vs. calendar based, is easier to understand.

How about deputies who default to the runner-up in the election, but allow the official to appoint a replacement deputy at any time?
I agree on the point that the term lengths should be one calender month long.

A agree on that the runner-ups in the elections should be deputies, but I disagree on allowing the offical to appoint a replacement at anytime unless the deputy has been absent without notice for a week and/or that there is an ability to sack a deputy legaly.

Is this Consitutional Article going to go into the polls? I realy want to see this done and compleated :). If there are no responces, I am willing to repoll this with the changes noted.

CivGeneral, please read the Judicial Procedures in post #3 of the Judicial thread concerning Proposed Legislative Polls for Constitutional Amendments. All proposed polls should be submitted to the Court for Judicial Review first. Thanks.

CivGeneral, please read the Judicial Procedures in post #3 of the Judicial thread concerning Proposed Legislative Polls for Constitutional Amendments. All proposed polls should be submitted to the Court for Judicial Review first. Thanks.
Ugh, More Beurocratic Nonsense, This proposal should have passed before the nominations started :rolleyes:.

This what I have so far for Article G, and it seems to address several of the electoral issues we face in the Term 1 elections(runoff polls, majority/plurality, deputies) as well as some of the new ideas discussed here(amnesty for prior notice absences, 6 day limit). I decided to remove the runoff rhetoric from Article H becauseit just seemed to make more sense here.

Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, (optional)with the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. All elected positions left in absentia
for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant.

Now, this is just a starting point, hopefully, if you like what you see so far. We still need to determine the role of deputies in the election. Are they the runner up or appointed? We also still have to determine the process of removal and replacement of an absent leader. Please let me know what you think.

I think this covers it pretty well. Good job. There are people who disagree with the runner-up position, and some disagree with 6 days, but we'll just have to hash it out. I guess it all depends on how strongly people feel about these items. Personally, I'm fine with it as written.

Where does the appointment of someone to fill offices with no accepted nominations go? Also appointment of replacements when both official and deputy are absent?

Where does the appointment of someone to fill offices with no accepted nominations go? Also appointment of replacements when both official and deputy are absent?

How about this?


Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, (optional)with the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. All elected positions left in absentia
for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant.
Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each
department, or by a Deputy department Minisiter in the
Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6)
days, the President will make the appointment. The President
will appoint a citizen to fill any elected position when there
is no one who accepts a nomination to the position.

It's my hope we can get some final comments here so that we can get this sent for JR.

Just a thought. Perhaps you could add something that states for how long the election runs, kind of like in the existing Article I. Constitutional amendment polls run for 96 hours, so we should put down how long government elections last.

Just a thought. Perhaps you could add something that states for how long the election runs, kind of like in the existing Article I. Constitutional amendment polls run for 96 hours, so we should put down how long government elections last.

@Lee - I would personally like to reserve specifics such as poll duration to a lower book of law, if possible. Article G seems to already be collapsing on it's own weight from the latest valid concerns of our President, and I would rather resolve those issues first.

Besides, polls now seem to be mod-run again, and that is usually like clockwork. A lower book may be in order one day, so keep up with the good proposals. :)

Any one else have an opinion on Lee's suggestion?

I agree, DZ. This got a lot longer than I wanted it to be. The more we put in, the more there is for people to disagree with, and believe me, there is a lot in it that people won't agree with. The problem is they won't come here and tell it to you. They'll just vote against it and maybe tell you why.

Check out the new stuff in bold, and see if that gets us closer to where we want to be. :) I am still wrestling with the deputy as runner-up thing.

Some feedback, please. ;)


Article G. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, (optional)with the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. The President shall appoint a citizen
to any office left vacant at the end of the general election. All
elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior
notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall
be appointed by the President. All Presidential appointments
are subject to a refusal poll, which can be posted by any citizen
and will require a 51% majority to overturn the appointment.

That's good, but don't you think the Deputy Minister should have precedence for filling a vacated office?

Well, yeah. I see your point. You're probably looking for something like this.

All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without
prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall
be appointed by the President, who will look first to the Deputy
of that Department.

That may cover it.

That's good, but don't you think the Deputy Minister should have precedence for filling a vacated office?

To be honest with you, I don't. ;) At least not if that person was the runner up in an election. Here we have a candidate that the people decided not to put in office, possibly by a large margin, and we are just going to offer that person the job carte blanche now the leader has screwed up? A Presidential appointment, held to task by the possibility of a refusal poll, gives our highest elected leader the authority to quickly rectify an empty office.

Another solution would be to hold a mid-term election, where the deputy will automatically be nominated for the position, and has control over the office during the 3-day procedure(24 hours for noms; 48 hours for the election). This would probably be the best solution in this game of absolute democracy, where the people must have a say in every little detail and the people do not want to leave important decisions in the hands of the people they elect.

I will work on updating this law later today, but in the meantime can we have a bit more discussion on the above mentioned options?

I like donivans idea, I think his mid term election idea is best, and control of that department during the election cycle is controlled by the deputy

I like DZ's idea but my only concern is that it may be hard to organize a spontaneous election during the term but who knows if it's possible then I strongly support that since it seems like people are against the president filling vacancies. :goodjob:

Sorry DZ, I think mid-Term elections are too time comsuming and ineffectual. I would agree that Presidential appointment is swift and effective, but we should not be shunning the people who accept their only Nomination choice to run for Office, lose, and have to take the Deputy position. The President should first look at the Deputy position for a replacement, and if the Deputy wants it, the should get it.

I agree Cyc, except I would change "will look first to" to "will first consider". We could also insert a clause allowing for a vote of no confidence.


All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without
prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall
be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy
of that Department. The appointment will be subject to a vote of
no confidence, which can be brought by any citizen after a
discussion period of twenty-four hours.

@Lee - I would personally like to reserve specifics such as poll duration to a lower book of law, if possible. Article G seems to already be collapsing on it's own weight from the latest valid concerns of our President, and I would rather resolve those issues first.

Besides, polls now seem to be mod-run again, and that is usually like clockwork. A lower book may be in order one day, so keep up with the good proposals. :)

Any one else have an opinion on Lee's suggestion?

Ok, I see your point. It has come to my attention that there are no clearly written rules concerning the electoral process. Perhaps they would be better fitted to a lower book of law.

In fact, once the deputy appointment and electoral nomination issues are resolved, I would be wiling to start a write up of the laws involved for the electoral process. In the event that those laws pass, certain articles of the Constitution may become redundant, but we'll cross that bridge when we get there.

And, just to keep this on topic, I see no problem with the changes proposed here.

instead of reading over the whole thread i think ill just put my 2 cents in here...clearly there has been alot of thought already...

-as far as term length, it should be in real time not game time and prolly 1 month
-length of abscence before replacement of some type should be about 6 to 7 days
-deputies should prolly replace ministers in the same way a VP replaces the Pres.
-deputies should either be named before the election by each candidate and run attached to thier candidate or be elected separately (doesnt really matter which)

total = $0.02

Personaly, I am against having deputies be named before the election and being elected seprately. I feel that the Deputies being the runner-up canidates are a much better idea.

Sorry DZ, I think mid-Term elections are too time comsuming and ineffectual. I would agree that Presidential appointment is swift and effective, but we should not be shunning the people who accept their only Nomination choice to run for Office, lose, and have to take the Deputy position. The President should first look at the Deputy position for a replacement, and if the Deputy wants it, the should get it.

Actually, Cyc, we only tried mid-term elections once or twice, but they never came with the stipulation that the deputy was automatically entered into the running. And since the deputy will have control of the department for the 3 days in limbo during the mid-term(not to mention the six days of the ousted leader's absence), the citizenry will have that time to determine whether the deputy has proven to be a suitable successor to the position.

If anything, this method would encourage deputies to stay active just in case, knowing that the role won't just be handed to them in the event of their boss' sudden departure. Because if they have spent those nine days doing nothing to better the department, the voters should be entitled to a better candidate.

And that's really what it's all about, isn't it? :)

DZ, what happens if the Deputy wants to run for the Minister spot? Then, you don't have the Deputy for awhile. I think it would be better to have it all done and out of the way for a whole term, IMHO.

Uh, no. I must still disagree with you, DZ. There is a reason you think we only ran mid terms once or twice. That's because you joined the Demogame in its second installment. DG2 was the cream of all the work put into DG1, plus a rehash of ideas that some people wanted to try again. Mid-Terms were one of them, and you say we only stomached them once or twice? That should prove my point, regardless of when you say we actually did run them.

If the Deputy is a no-show or a deadbeat, we will know about it. If the deputy needs to be replaced after being promoted to Leader, so be it. But I think people need a chance to prove themselves and this step up is an excellent opportunity. Let's give these Deputies that chance to prove themselves (and I don't mean for the 6-9 days you're willing to give them). Your process takes way too long anyways.

OK, try this one on for size. :)

Let's say that the deputy you are willing to unconditionally promote was appointed as a result of an uncontested election. Are you also willing to bypass the will of the people in this instance as well? Because doing so would ensure that the people will have had as little say in this promotion as they did for the guy who lost the election 27-9 and inherited the job.

Holding midterm elections could easily be implemented in both cases(we're talking 3 days), with no need to distinguish between the two and bog down our ruleset. The people still get to have their say, while the deputy has the inside track thanks to 7 days already running the show.

For someone who I respect for his tireless efforts in fighting for the people's will, I am a bit surprised to find you bailing out on them here. :confused: ;)

OK, try this one on for size. :)

Let's say that the deputy you are willing to unconditionally promote was appointed as a result of an uncontested election. Are you also willing to bypass the will of the people in this instance as well? Because doing so would ensure that the people will have had as little say in this promotion as they did for the guy who lost the election 27-9 and inherited the job.

But the people know he at least cared enough to run for the position.

Holding midterm elections could easily be implemented in both cases(we're talking 3 days), with no need to distinguish between the two and bog down our ruleset. The people still get to have their say, while the deputy has the inside track thanks to 7 days already running the show.

Good point about over-head and thrift of words.

For someone who I respect for his tireless efforts in fighting for the people's will, I am a bit surprised to find you bailing out on them here. :confused: ;)

Bailing on them? :eek: I'm trying to protect the dignity of at least 8 of them (including the Vice President). Ok, I'll surrender my position on the matter if you include the Vice President as a Deputy.

But the people know he at least cared enough to run for the position.

I understand your point here, and hopefully this would pay off in spades during the mid-term election. :)

Bailing on them? :eek: I'm trying to protect the dignity of at least 8 of them (including the Vice President). Ok, I'll surrender my position on the matter if you include the Vice President as a Deputy.

Meaning that a VP should have to endure the same process should the President bail? In consulting Donovan's Code Section 27-9, I have no problem with that. :D

Hope that the "bailing" comment didn't come off as a cheap shot. It certainly wasn't meant to be, as I have always applauded your efforts to champion the cause of newer players. I actually stand by your side in those endeavors, but am also trying to wrestle with the whole "repesentative government" thing as it pertains here. :)

Thinking about the runner-up deputy a little more:

Therre are two reasons a deputy is needed -- planned absenses and unplanned ones.

In the case of planned absenses, the leader knows exactly who is filling in, and can provide instructions of how to handle the office but not the actual turn instructions. The deputy gets a chance to step up and show his/her quality.

In the case of unplanned absenses, for DG4 we had a provision that the deputy could post instructions if the leader had not posted at the T-24hour point. To my knowledge, nobody did this in an unplanned absense case. We always have the President / DP to back up the missing leader. Should we allow the President to post instructions so that someone in the CoC (possibly at odds with the missing leader) can't use DP perogative to change the area of the missing one?

If we did a midterm election, the deputy could run the show until the midterm finished. We would need to put time limits on the midterm that it must complete before nominations for the next term starts. Otherwise you have two simultaneous election cycles for the same office.

Can we just get this thing passed without going on forever about this item or that item. New ideas popping up all the time.

As it stands there are not going to be any further elections because they aren't in the Constitution. This article puts a limit on each office holder's time in office. One month. Term limits are not mentioned in the Constitution anywhere else. As it stands right now, the will of the people could concievably never be heard again. Lets stop all this back and forth and get this Article to the Judiciary. If someone doesn't like it they can always try to amend it.

:gripe:

Ok, Comnenus. Draw up a Proposed Poll, including the most recently accepted text. Then we can have one final look before a JR is requested. BTW, I don't think the Prez should be posting Instructions for any Leaders.

Following is proposed Article G using wording which has previously been posted in this thread (this is a synthesis of several posts):


Article G
All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, (optional) with the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. The President shall appoint a citizen
to any office left vacant at the end of the general election.
All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without
prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement
shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the
Deputy of that Department.

All Presidential appointments are subject to a refusal poll,
which can be posted by any citizen and will require a 51%
majority to overturn the appointment.

Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each
department, or by a Deputy department Minisiter in the
Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6)
days, the President will make the appointment.

Following is proposed Article G with some wording changed for clarification:


Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, and the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. The President shall appoint a citizen
to any office left vacant at the end of the general election.
All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without
prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement
shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the
Deputy of that Department.

All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of
No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51%
of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be
brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least
twenty-four hours.

Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each
department, or by a Deputy department Minister in the
Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6)
days, the President will make the appointment.

For a full discussion of this proposed Article, please go to the beginning of this thread. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246)

The importance of passing Article G cannot be overly stressed. This Article would limit elected official to a one month term. Additionally, it sets the runnerup in an election to be the department Deputy. It also addresses issues of appointments and redress of citizen displeasure with those appointments, the number of offices a candidate can run for, and situations where no one is a candidate for an office. I have changed some wording here to make it clear that not ALL Presidential appointments are subject to a vote of No Confidence, only appointments to offices that would otherwise be elected. It also requires a discussion period before a vote of No Confidence can go to a poll. I have separated paragraphs in what I deem to be a logical manner in order to facilitate reading of the Article.

I have in mind an amendment to this, but I'll save it until after the poll because we really need to get this approved.

This poll was created to approve the adoption of the following legislation into the Constitution. If this Legislation is approved, it will become Article G. It basically states the general provisions for term lengths, Deputies, appointments, runoff polls, and votes of no confidence. Please read this legislation carefully.
Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month,
with each position being granted to the candidate who receives
the largest number of votes in that election, and the
runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive
and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two
or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between
those candidates only. The President shall appoint a citizen
to any office left vacant at the end of the general election.
All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without
prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement
shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the
Deputy of that Department.

All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of
No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51%
of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be
brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least
twenty-four hours.

Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each
department, or by a Deputy department Minister in the
Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6)
days, the President will make the appointment.

Please Vote one of the following options ~
YES - You want to adopt this Article for the Constitution
NO - You reject this Article
ABSTAIN - You have no opinion

This poll will remain open for 4 days
Relevant discussion can be found here (link).

That's basically what we're looking for, Comnenus. Just keep using this basic format and you can't go wrong. Never put 2 different pieces of Legislation in the same poll, as it should be presented in a "yes or no" format to the voter. The poll question could be written as "Do you accept this Legislation as Article G". Then you'd list your three options, chose 4 days running time, chose Public Polling (I think I remembered everything), put the coded text in and your ready to submit. Good luck.

... Never put 2 different pieces of Legislation in the same poll, as it should be presented in a "yes or no" format to the voter. The poll question could be written as "Do you accept this Legislation as Article G". Then you'd list your three options, chose 4 days running time, chose Public Polling (I think I remembered everything), put the coded text in and your ready to submit. Good luck.

Actually, I submitted the 2 different versions here because one shows what has actually been written up previously, and the other has a wording variation. DZ hasn't had a chance to comment, let alone any other interested citizen, so it is not my intent to post a poll just yet. But very soon, I hope.

Edit: Actually, I should say to request a JR, first.

And thanks for your PM re: Public Polls. It helped to clear up the issue for me.

I will try to take a peek at this tonight by tomorrow, Comnenus. As far as I can see, there is no hurry as:

1. The elections are still 3 weeks away
2. I would prefer that Article I were amended before passing this through to make this easier to pass(Article H is already having trouble, even while enjoying 80% support).

I will not use this as an excuse to rest on my laurels, however. But my priority is to submit Article I to the Judiciary tonight. :)

I will try to take a peek at this tonight by tomorrow, Comnenus. As far as I can see, there is no hurry as:

1. The elections are still 3 weeks away
2. I would prefer that Article I were amended before passing this through to make this easier to pass(Article H is already having trouble, even while enjoying 80% support).

I will not use this as an excuse to rest on my laurels, however. But my priority is to submit Article I to the Judiciary tonight. :)

That's up to you, of course, although I disagree. We already have some version of I. in the Constitution. Without this Article there won't be any further elections since it is not provided for anywhere else in the Constitution. But I can't and won't force the issue.

Article I submitted! :D

With that out of the way, Article G now becomes my priority. I will take a peek at it tonight, so that it is fresh in my mind to mull over while at work tomorrow. Hopefully no one questions me about the blank stare. :twitch: :D

:lol: :rotfl:

I suggest that since there is a poll currently being conducted on the issue of selection of Deputies, that we do not decide that language until the poll is finished. Not that I want to wait, but right now the poll is a dead heat between runnerup and appointed.

That's fine with me, Comnenus. Hopefully we can time it with the passage of Article I (please, oh please!) so that this one sails through the House just in time for elections. I just hope none of our leader's bail on us before an in absentia law can take effect. ;)

One thing that concerns me is that since the deputy situation is such a contentious issue, including law that favors one side over the other could cause a finished Article G to falter yet again, leaving us with no election law. After all, the current deadlock in the informational poll would likely carry over to an amendment poll.

Let me put my thinking cap on. For all intents and purposes, we have three days to get this right.

One thing that concerns me is that since the deputy situation is such a contentious issue, including law that favors one side over the other could cause a finished Article G to falter yet again, leaving us with no election law. After all, the current deadlock in the informational poll would likely carry over to an amendment poll.


You are absolutely right. If the current situation continues in that poll, then I would suggest we'll need to drop the phrase about election/appointment of deputies and deal with that later.

Well, while I think of Deputies as extensions of the Minister's will, I guess that debate ended before I got here.

Now, Article G as stated allows for Votes of No Confidence for appointments. However, it does not, at this time, allow for removal of elected officials for violating Will of the People, ala Impeachment. Nowhere in the current Constitution is there a recourse process should an elected official abuse his/her power. Looking at the language of this Article, it seems that the proper place for such Recourse is here. Let us debate this either now or soon after what we have is passed.


And, by virtue of their being 2nd place, rather than 1st, where would Deputies fall? Would they have to under go impeachment, or merely have a No Confidence levied upon them?

Actually, considering that method of election, I'd want to change the electoral process to a "Prefernce" system where you award 2 points to the person you most want to hold the office, and 1 point to the guy you'd prefer next. (Or n, n-1, n-2, ... points per pick where n = number of candidates) As a question, would Article G have to reflect such a system, or could such a procedure be put in the lesser book?

A Major hole in the Constitution is the accountability. Runner up deputies must either be bound by the election winners campaign promises, or be subjected to either impeachment, appointment removal. Still, I believe runners up have a role.

As a question, would Article G have to reflect such a system, or could such a procedure be put in the lesser book?

The system you speak of may be a bit too complex for the Constitution. Something like this would go in the Code of Laws.

Now that all other Articles have passed, We should now turn our attention hither.

As for me, I'll vote for the Article as it stands, but I would wish to duplicate certain language in the Article to allow the Runner-Up to refuse a Deputy position should they wish to. (i.e. if they just hate the winner so much they cannot see working with him/her.)

that is exactly why the runner up should not automatically become deputy, now it would be a strategy to generate that hatred to get your back freee...

Okay, here is my first step: Allowing the Runner-Up to Refuse, while also giving the Runner-Up Preference for Deputy Positions. This also addreses Ties for 2nd place.

removed text in italics added text in boldface


Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election, and the runner-up becoming the deputy in elections for the Executive and Legislative Branches. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.

In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.

The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the general election. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.

All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51% of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least twenty-four hours.

Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each department, or by a Deputy department Minister in the Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6) days, the President will make the appointment.



Slight note of clarification: The Ministerial Positions are Elective, but the Deputy positions, by my modification, are reduced to "appointment with preference." So, said Deputy is not subject to "No Confidence" unless and until he/she is promoted to the Full Minister position.

I was thinking about addind a clause that says that the Ministers could also remove any Appointed persons in their Department with the exception of their Deputy, but since Deputy is the Only Appointed Position with any Real Power under this Proposal, I guess such a clause is unnecessary.

Now all we need is procedures to remove an Elected Official should they consistently voilate WotP.

Guys... Hello... We still have a missing ammendment to deal with here...

If I do not have any input on my changes by the time I return from Work Thursday (around 9 my time) then I shall go ahead and submit my changes for Judicial Review. I, for one, will NOT leave us with an incomplete Consitution. (Well, one that is not more than 1% incomplete, at least.)

EDIT: Okay, make it 0500 GMT Friday, Midnight where I am, if I'm up that late:


This poll was created to approve the adoption of the following legislation into the Constitution. If this Legislation is approved, it will become Article G. It basically states the general provisions for term lengths, Deputies, appointments, runoff polls, and votes of no confidence. Please read this legislation carefully.


Article G
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.
2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.
3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the general election. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.
4. All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51% of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least twenty-four hours.
5. Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each department, or by a Deputy department Minister in the Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6) days, the President will make the appointment.


Please Vote one of the following options ~
YES - You want to adopt this Article for the Constitution
NO - You reject this Article
ABSTAIN - You have no opinion

This poll will remain open for 4 days
Relevant discussion can be found here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246)

try the appointment model too as an option, or at least a binding contract stated in each
candiidates campaign platform, so the deputy fulfill the ministers platform.

Guys... Hello... We still have a missing ammendment to deal with here...

If I do not have any input on my changes by the time I return from Work Thursday (around 9 my time) then I shall go ahead and submit my changes for Judicial Review. I, for one, will NOT leave us with an incomplete Consitution. (Well, one that is not more than 1% incomplete, at least.)

Before it can be submitted for JR, there must be a proposed poll as the last substantial post in the thread for 24 hours. (think I paraphrased the court correctly)

I know that I need to have an "Impeachment Clause" in this thing, but that would take a full length discussion. Need to check Section 8 of the Judicial Code. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95439&page=1)

EDIT: We could just have unruly Deputies be subject to Impeachment CCs like their Superiors are, ala Judicial Code Section 8.

EDIT 2: I guess I kinda rocked the boat then... ah well, consider my "ultimatum" rescinded. I was just a bit weary of hearing nothing. (Reference my diatribe in Article E.)

Okay, New Version with added References to the Judicial Code in Boldface:


Article G
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.
2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.
.. a. If a citizen feels that a Deputy, in the discharge of duties as Acting Minister, did not follow the general mandates of his/her Minister to the best of his/her ability, taking into account the circumstances at the time, that citizen may file a Citizen's Complaint as expressed in the Judicial Code, Section 8.
3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the general election. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.
4. All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51% of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least twenty-four hours.
.. a. The method of impeaching an Elected Officer or Deputy for disobeying this Constitution, articles of lesser law, or Forum Rules is listed in the Judicial Code, Section 8: Citizen's Complaint
5. Appointed offices shall be filled by the Minister of each department, or by a Deputy department Minister in the Minister's absence. In case both are absent more than six (6) days, the President will make the appointment.

There. That should do it. Of course, we may have to actually Codify the Judicial Code to make it official, but I'm hoping that we won't have to import the JC into the Constitution itself. If the Sub-Clauses referencing the JC are a liability, we can remove them for now.

Sir Donald,

Thanks for taking some initiative here. However, I think it would be best if we hold the Constitution to the basics and submit most of the procedures you've outlined to lower law. As you've stated, the Judicial code mentioned will likely change month to month, based on who sets procedure as Chief Justice.

Plus there are several items in there that should be removed completely(that I know Sir Donald had nothing to do with. ;) ).

1. Deputy Minister shall make appointments? Who? Based on what? When would the need for this be? Is it important enough for our Constitution?

2. Mandatory Vote of No Confidence Poll. I would rather refer to this as a refusal poll, and make it optional for the citizenry. If people are happy with the decision, why waste their time with a poll?

3. Deputy process. Either we appoint the deputy or we use the runner up. As most runners-up would choose to retain their position, I think we can lean one way or another here. But also need to concern ourselves with the fact that there is no Article G in place, so we must draft a law that the people will pass. And with deputy selection being a 50/50 issue, I am concerned about 67% passage of a bill that leans to far to one side of this issue.

So this needs to be pared down a bit, while addressing the deputy debate with neutrality, if possible. Let's toss these ideas around, and I will try to help hammer this out later. :)

3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the general election.

This line is a dangerous one. Some people will try to tell the citizens that when an election ends in a tie, the Office was left vacant at the end of the general election. I know you have Section 1. that states "In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.", but we have people that will bend these words to their satisfaction. So this needs to be looked at.

I agree with DZ that we may not want the Judicial Code mentioned in the Constitution. It kind of puts a police state twist on the document. That stuff should go in the CoL. In fact, I'd like to see the current Judicial Code put into law as part of the CoL, so it's not always changing with the CJ. If it were brought into Law, then the reference to a single section of the JC could remain permanantly.

In my opinion, the only section we can relegate to the CoL would be Section 5, the one about "Other Appointments". Most of these guys (seem to) have no real power beyond "Advise and Assist", as I have indicated before, and thus probably don't merit a mention in the Constitution, so long as they are in a CoL

Yeah, I was leary about the subsections refering to the JC. But I wanted them for Completeness sake. I am in favor of removing these for now and adding them back on as an ammendment once the JC has been codified.

For the issue of Deputies, I made sure that all my Is were dotted and Ts were crossed. Section 2, in effect means: The Minister must appoint someone who came in Second to the position of Deputy unless all persons who came in second have expressed a direct refusal to be Deputy. In case of a tie for Second, the Minister may pick and choose from among this subgroup, but this subgroup must be exhausted before anyone outside the subgroup can be considered. (Here, italics are considered for emphesis)


As for Section 3, How about this: (removed, added)


3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the general election runoff period. If a runoff was conducted but ended in a second tie, the President shall cast the deciding vote, unless the Office of President is in Runoff, in which case the outgoing Chief Justice shall cast the deciding vote for that election only. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.


EDIT: Added the contingency for if the Office of President is in the Runoff


Oh, and I'm not sure where the Honorable Minister of Trade had infered that a "No Confidence" Poll was mandatory. Just because a citizen can bring it up, doesn't mean that anyone will. Well... maybe some will based on their ideals... I am amiable to a change in the language where "No Confidence" becomes "Refusal" however.

Works for me, SD3. You're doing excellent work on the Amendment.

I agree that Section 5 can be shuffled off to the CoL. It's not really needed here. ;)

And I say let's fly with the Deputy clause. I'ts sound and covers what we need covered for now.

This poll was created to approve the adoption of the following legislation into the Constitution. If this Legislation is approved, it will become Article G. It basically states the general provisions for term lengths, Deputies, appointments, and runoff polls. Please read this legislation carefully.


1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.
2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.
3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the runoff period, or the start of the new term should there be no runoff. If a runoff was conducted but ended in a second tie, the President shall cast the deciding vote, unless the Office of President is in Runoff, in which case the outgoing Chief Justice shall cast the deciding vote for that election only. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.
4. All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51% of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least twenty-four hours.


Please Vote one of the following options ~
YES - You want to adopt this Article for the Constitution
NO - You reject this Article
ABSTAIN - You have no opinion

This poll will remain open for 4 days
Relevant discussion can be found Here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95246)


Recent change is an addition of a clause to cover the situation where there are vacancies but no runoffs. (I could imagine some nut saying that if there aren't any runoffs in an election that the President would have no right to appoint people.)

If I need to make it clear that the Outgoing CJ has deciding vote authority ONLY in a Presidental runoff and the Incomming President has the deciding vote in all other runoffs, please tell me and I will adjust the section.

Looks good to me. I'll second this proposed poll.

i third the proposal, send it to the poll!

Way too detailed for the Con.

Keep the general layout in the Con, move the specifics to the Code of Laws. Cyc, you know better than to accept convoluted stuff like this in the Con. Help the people new to the process do things the right way.

-- Ravensfire

Way too detailed for the Con.

Keep the general layout in the Con, move the specifics to the Code of Laws. Cyc, you know better than to accept convoluted stuff like this in the Con. Help the people new to the process do things the right way.

-- Ravensfire

Yes, the right way in principle is to have as little detail in the Con as possible. Remember however we tried that in DG4 for this specific article and ended up with a debacle because we had people who wanted to argue for too broad a definition of "vacant". The followup arguement in that case was that lower law cannot modify the Constitution even to fill in gaps which were intentionally left vague. I'd rather not encourage that kind of argument again.

Yes, the right way in principle is to have as little detail in the Con as possible. Remember however we tried that in DG4 for this specific article and ended up with a debacle because we had people who wanted to argue for too broad a definition of "vacant". The followup arguement in that case was that lower law cannot modify the Constitution even to fill in gaps which were intentionally left vague. I'd rather not encourage that kind of argument again.

Then drop entirely the concept of a CoL and put EVERYTHING in the Con. That's really what you're advocating, DS.

Specifically, in this case, the Con should declare that an office can be declared vacant, and that the President (using the infamous "as prescribed by law") can declare a replacement. The CoL then defines WHEN and office is vacant (after election, absent official, etc), and HOW the replacement is determined.

In that same section of the CoL, define deputies, how they are chosed, replaced, etc.

CoL also includes the clause on the no-confidence vote for all replacements.

Done. Constitution defines the broad authority, CoL fills in the details.

-- Ravensfire

Gotta agree with Ravensfire here, as it seems that Article G is about to collapse on its own weight. Unfortunately, I don't have the time to reel it in so any help here would be appreciated.

So perhaps Sir Donald and RF can work together on this one? I will try to stay active in the discussions.

Well, whatever I thought needed to be rigid I kept in. That's... a lot. Let's put this to poll for now, see how it goes, and then if it fails, we'll discuss.

Section 2 really does need to be in there, because it defines the position of Deputies. You don't want to have there be deputies 1 term and none the next, do you?

The proposed poll has been submitted to the Judiciary for Judicial Review. It has passed the JR and is now awaiting approval through the polls.

The ratification poll can be posted tonight or tomorrow, depending on the author. It's usually better not to post a poll such as this on the weekend, but the call is SD3's.

Well, back to the drawing board, as they say.

Or perhaps to the "Cutting Board"...

Are we allowed to continue the revisions process in this thread, or will we need to open a new thread?

EDIT: This is what I was thinking.


1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.
{2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.}
3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the election period. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, {who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.}

Note that Section 4 has been removed in its enterity, and Section 3 has been shortened, specifying only an "election period" which would encompass nominations, generals, and runoffs. (If I need to make that clear, I will. The "deciding vote" portion will now be relegated to the CoL.) Section 4, as well as other methods for "Removal from Office" may be either set to the CoL, or added as an ammendment at a later date.

The portions in curvy brackets (Section 2 and part of Section 3) pertain to the Office of Deputy, and may be removed should areas in that section be too "controvercial". These portions would be added back in as an ammendment at a latter date.

I think it sounds good though you may want to open another thread just to get rid of all the clutter

I think this thread will do just fine. It allows easy research as to what has been discussed before. We should just continue here.

OK, looking at each section (I'll use separate posts for ease of discussion), here is proposed section 1.


1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each
position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number
of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.


This section contains three main points.

Fixed term of one month
Top vote getter wins, no matter how many candidates there are and no matter how small the percentage is.
A runoff poll is held if there are two or more tied with the same vote total.


I doubt there will be significant dissent on any of these points. Sure there are people who might say with 5 candidates, a winner getting 21% of the votes doesn't have a mandate -- but as pointed out by several people in the original discussion, let's just settle for something we can all get along with, whether we agree 100% or not.

On section 2 (separate post to make the discussion easier)

2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed
by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate
Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse
the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in
an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order
of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.


We voted to have runner-ups as deputies. There are some people who won't accept the will of the majority, so we ended up with this convoluted conditional logic as a proposed section of the article. Let's go back to the simple 'runner-up is the deputy' and get it over with. If there is no clear runner-up or the runner-up declines, or the deputy slot becomes vacant, then the official appoints a deputy.

Remember, the objective is not a rule that we all agree with 100%. The goal is a rule that we can all live with.

On section 2 (separate post to make the discussion easier) ... If there is no clear runner-up or the runner-up declines, or the deputy slot becomes vacant, then the official appoints a deputy.

So, if there is a tie for 2nd, then neither of them get the Deputy Job save at the direct will of the new Minister, who could then pick someone more subserviant to him/her?

Also, what of the shortened Section 3?

On section 2 (separate post to make the discussion easier)

2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed
by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate
Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse
the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in
an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order
of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.


We voted to have runner-ups as deputies. There are some people who won't accept the will of the majority, so we ended up with this convoluted conditional logic as a proposed section of the article. Let's go back to the simple 'runner-up is the deputy' and get it over with. If there is no clear runner-up or the runner-up declines, or the deputy slot becomes vacant, then the official appoints a deputy.

Remember, the objective is not a rule that we all agree with 100%. The goal is a rule that we can all live with.

Only 45% chose the deputy option in the latest poll, much fewer than is needed to pass a Constitutional bill. Yet the ratification poll had over 70% approval. So please try not to blame obstructionism here. Article G failed because Article I may still be a bit too rigid for Apathetica's tastes, not because of a defiance of the will of the plurality.

So most of us were prepared to live with it, Mr. President. I was, and I cannot stand the idea of the President being forced to "choose" the loser of an election as a successor should the winner go AWOL. What if the election results were 17-1? Would the will of the people be served by this law under this scenario?

Somewhere in this thread, I proposed mid-term elections for this type of scenario. If we added this to part 3, then I could live with runner-up deputies in a better state of mind than I am currently.

Only 45% chose the deputy option in the latest poll, much fewer than is needed to pass a Constitutional bill. Yet the ratification poll had over 70% approval. So please try not to blame obstructionism here. Article G failed because Article I may still be a bit too rigid for Apathetica's tastes, not because of a defiance of the will of the plurality.


Ok, that seems an accurate read on the situation. I'm just a little frustrated that we can't get quite enough people to just agree to what should be a relatively simple and well-defined solution.


So most of us were prepared to live with it, Mr. President. I was, and I cannot stand the idea of the President being forced to "choose" the loser of an election as a successor should the winner go AWOL. What if the election results were 17-1? Would the will of the people be served by this law under this scenario?


At least in this case we know the loser of the election actually wanted the office. My problem in DG4 was finding anyone who actually wanted to be the deputy. Maybe that won't be as much a problem in DG5.


Somewhere in this thread, I proposed mid-term elections for this type of scenario. If we added this to part 3, then I could live with runner-up deputies in a better state of mind than I am currently.

I would be fine with mid-terms except I can't see them taking less than a week to do it right, which at best results in someone being in office 2 weeks, and at worst leaves just a couple of days before the next election cycle starts.

Here's an alternative -- we could pre-elect substitute leaders:

What if we started out each term with a 3-day poll of all the non-winning candidates plus any additional citizens who want to included, titled "who do you want to fill any open positions which come up"? If a position becomes vacant, it gets filled by the remaining highest vote total person from the list. This system has the advantage that it does not consume all the time of a mid-term election, while ensuring at least in theory that the subtitutes will be who the people want. The drawback of this "substitute" program is that the people on that list would not be office-specific, but that could be addressed by having one "substitute" nomination / election for each office, in effect a "deputy election". At this point I would prefer a single substitute list, to keep it simple.

Not a bad suggestion, Dave. We could also let the VP fill in during the mid-term process, as it may actually give the VP something to do for a change. I will give both tyese ideas some more thought before commenting further.

I don't see the midterm nom/election process taking more than 3 days, one day for noms and two days for elections.

My apologies for the delay - I've been out for a few days.

Detailed proposal (ignore formatting/numbering/etc on the CoL stuff):
Article G.
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 12 hours of the Turn
Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies, but pro-tem justices
confirmed by the remaining justices and the President.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

CoL Section 2 Vacant Office
1. Should an official fail to post instructions for 2
consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office vacant.

CoL Section 3 Deputies
1. For all positions using deputies, a deputy must be
selected in the following manner: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed. If the
election was contested, the deputy position must be
offered to the runner-up in the election. Should that
citizen decline, the office holder may seek any citizen
for the position.

CoL Section 4 Confirmation Polls
1. Confirmation polls are used to challenge the appoinement
of a citizen to an elected office. Any citizen may
create a confirmation poll, should one not already exist.
This poll must be created within 24 hours of the
appointment, and ask the question "Do you approve of the
appointment of <citizen name> to the office of <office
name>?", with Yes, No and Abstain option. This poll is
to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.


This covers the complaints I had on the previous concept - it defines things (including Judicial deputies - missing from before), uses fairly clear language, and should cover what's needed.

More comments,

Mid-term elections - DZ, while I kinda like the idea, I feel it's not practical for this game and the timeframe we operate. Bump the deputy up, use a confirmation poll to weed out the truly incompetent, and run with it. We're talking one month terms here - time is important.

Deputies - while I don't like it, it is the WoTP, so deputy positions offered first to runner-up, then wide open. I didn't go full cascade - all citizens in election - pure personal preference. If the runner-up didn't want it, just open it up and let anyone apply. Also, deputies explicitly allowed to "conduct the affairs of the office" during absence of the main official, AND to post the official instructions if nothing up within 12 hours of the turn chat. Although this wasn't used in DG4, it's a good idea to keep in there.

Vacant office - it's hard to define "absent", especially on number of days. Chat instructions though - that's easy. Miss two in a row, and the Judiciary (not the Pres), can declare the office vacant. Yeah, it makes it tough on the Judiciary - that's harder - no turn chat for them. Ideas on that would be appreciated. If the office is vacant, offer to the deputy, then wide open. Simple, straightforward.

Sorry for the slight rambling - I'm rushed and in a fair amount of pain (stupid back!). I'll try to bounce back here this afternoon.

-- Ravensfire

:wavey:

Ravensfire, I can't spend a lot of time on the current reply (doing it from work), but I think it is very important to tell you this publically and as quickly as possible.

I'm glad to see you seem to be re-engaging with the game by offering this proposal. Another positive alternative is exactly what we need at this point. Many of your past proposals (at least the ones made when you're in a good mood) have been first-rate, some of the best in DG history, and though I have not had time yet to read it thoroughly this one looks like it's top quality, at least on the surface. :clap:

Welcome back old friend! :D

Looks well inspired, Raven.

Time for my $0.02


Article G.
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

While this would work 99% of the time, I could see where the First Election had 4 people split with 22% of the vote apiece, then the remaining 12% split their vote among 3 of the remainder (26/26/26/22), then the losing faction diverting more to 2 candidates equally (34/34/32), then these last 2 getting 50/50.

Okay, a bit farfetched, but given that runoffs are authorized only in the case of a tie, I would say that if a runoff gives another tied result, that a tie-breaker be designated. In the instance of the Office of the President, the Outgoing Chief Justice would be the "Deciding vote". In all other instances, the Incomming President gets the call. At least then we won't delay the turnchats past Day 3.


2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 12 hours of the Turn
Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.


Seems okay. Why do I feel that the phrase "as perscribed by law" needs to go somewhere?


3. The Judiciary does not use deputies, but pro-tem justices
confirmed by the remaining justices and the President.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

Wording in Section 3 might be trippy. Nice concept for changing the "No Confidence" poll to a "Confirmation" poll.

CoL Section 2 Vacant Office

It seems okay to me. If people have a problem with the "length", remember, this is an entry into the CoL and thus may be changed by a good number of the people.


CoL Section 3 Deputies
1. For all positions using deputies, a deputy must be
selected in the following manner: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed. If the
election was contested, the deputy position must be
offered to the runner-up in the election. Should that
citizen decline, the office holder may seek any citizen
for the position.

Unlike the Minister's position, you do not address ties here. If a tie occurs, the Minister should have to exhaust all of the tied citizens before going outside this subset. It is my opinion that the Minister can, however, choose which of the tied citizens he/she can ask first.

Perhaps adding this sentence to the end would help:

If there is a tie for Runner-Up, the office holder may pick from among those citizens that are tied. However, all of the tied citizens must decline before the Office Holder can appoint someone outside of that subgroup.

This addition also eliminates the need for Runoffs for Deputy. Unless you want runoffs for Deputy. (In which case, say that Section 1 of Article G applies to Deputy Officials as well and leave it at that.)

CoL Section 4 Confirmation Polls

No problems here. And kudos for placing the burden on the naysayers this time.


Lastly, you would likely have to submit separate Proposed Polls for Each "Code" as well as the Article.

Thanks for the kind words, DS. I'll try to be around a bit more. Hopefully as the game moves out of my weakest period (the beginning), I can meaningfully participate again!

Sir Donald III, good comments - my thanks.

Runoffs - You're comment on the runoffs taking a while (by looping) is correct - but very, very unlikely to happen. Even if it does, I would prefer to see the cycle of elections continue. We're elected our officials - let the debates, and the votes continue. After the first tied runoff - I'm going to start asking hard, specific questions of the candidates. Best answer gets my vote, and support.

Deputies - don't tell DaveShack, but I hate the "as prescribed by law" phrase! ;) Okay, maybe not hate, but dislike. It was put in DG4 because people wanted a strict ruleset. Ugh. DG5 is quite a bit more relaxed, a more permissive style. Thus far, our Judiciary has ruled in a similar vein (except to make a very valid point). If it goes anywhere, it should be in G.4 "If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen, as prescribed by law." Personally - I don't see the need for it. I feel that the phrase "as presribed by law" ought to be considered implicit throughout the entire document - that a lower form of law may further expand/restrict the Constitution (depending on the specific clause), but may not contradict the Constitution.

Example 1 - Con - the President may appoint to a vacant office. CoL - The President must appoint the deputy first, then any other citizen. This is fine - the CoL further defines/restricts what happens.

Example 2 - Con - all officials are elected to one month terms. CoL - the members of the Judiciary shall have 3 month, staggered terms, such that only one member is elected per cycle. This is bad - CoL goes beyond the Con.

Okay, both examples are pretty obvious, but make my point.

Confirmation poll - Thanks! Semantics dramatically change things - ask Cyc about the "innocence until found guilty" vs "innocence unless found guilty". Likewise on the burden of proof for the poll - we should presume that the person is worthy - after all, they were appointed there. To decide otherwise should require a majority of citizens flat-out voting "no".

Deputies - good point, missed that. Section ought to be added. Should there be no further comments, I'll post a revised proposal with that added tonight (after saving Paragon City, again, from Dr. Vahz, of course!).

Polls - probably, but I'll let the Judiciary handle that one!

Again, thanks for the comments!
-- Ravensfire

I already made Blackheart a Deputy FA, which was permitted, and no one reacted to it.
I think that difficult human beings look for one law, pragmatic human beings another.

My proposal, with changes suggested by Sir Donald III:
Detailed proposal (ignore formatting/numbering/etc on the CoL stuff):

Code:
Article G.
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 12 hours of the Turn
Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an
absence, a pro-tem justices may be appointed by the
Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if
absent) and confirmed by the remaining justices and the
President.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

CoL Section 2 Vacant Office
1. Should an official fail to post instructions for 2
consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office vacant.

CoL Section 3 Deputies
1. For all positions using deputies, a deputy must be
selected in the following manner: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed. If the
election was contested, the deputy position must be
offered to the runner-up in the election. Should that
citizen decline, the office holder may seek any citizen
for the position. If there is a tie for runner-up, the
deputy may be chosen from all those citizens that
are tied. However, all of the tied citizens must decline
before any other citizen may be appointed deputy for
that office.

CoL Section 4 Confirmation Polls
1. Confirmation polls are used to challenge the appoinement
of a citizen to an elected office. Any citizen may
create a confirmation poll, should one not already exist.
This poll must be created within 24 hours of the
appointment, and ask the question "Do you approve of the
appointment of <citizen name> to the office of <office
name>?", with Yes, No and Abstain option. This poll is
to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.


Areas that I feel still need work on *this* proposal:
-- Judicial absences
-- Wording on G.3 still feels awkward

Task list for Article G (and supporting works)
-- Determine which proposal to tweak
-- Determine and resolve differences
-- Post proposed poll for public review
-- Post proposal for Judicial review
-- Post proposal for polling and adoption

-- Ravensfire

Polls - probably, but I'll let the Judiciary handle that one!
Yes, the Court would much rather see a separate proposal for each Article/Law. People may only disagree with a small part in one law, and that is no reason to shoot down any of the others. Separate Laws, separate proposals.

This is a Proposed Poll to Establish an Article G to the Constitution. Please read the Legislation carefully before Voting:

Article G
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 12 hours of the upcomming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an
absence, a pro-tem justices may be appointed by the
Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if
absent) and confirmed by the remaining justices and the
President.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

Please Vote:
YES, I apporve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Article I of the Constitution.

---

Personal Editing: Changed Article 2 slightly to clarify within which 12 hours the Deputy's powers were valid in. Ravensfire's article didn't have "Upcomming". I hope this was his intent. (If it wasn't he can justly burn me.)

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of a Section to the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting:

CoL Section # Deputies
1. For all positions using deputies, a deputy must be
selected in the following manner: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed. If the
election was contested, the deputy position must be
offered to the runner-up in the election. Should that
citizen decline, the office holder may seek any citizen
for the position. If there is a tie for runner-up, the
deputy may be chosen from all those citizens that
are tied. However, all of the tied citizens must decline
before any other citizen may be appointed deputy for
that office.

Please Vote:
YES, I apporve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Section I (1) of the Code of Laws.

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of a Section to the Code of Laws pertaining to Confirmation Polls. Read the legislation carefully before Voting.

CoL Section # Confirmation Polls
1. Confirmation polls are used to challenge the appoinement
of a citizen to an elected office. Any citizen may
create a confirmation poll, should one not already exist.
This poll must be created within 24 hours of the
appointment, and ask the question "Do you approve of the
appointment of <citizen name> to the office of <office
name>?", with Yes, No and Abstain option. This poll is
to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.

Please Vote:
YES, I apporve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Section I (1) of the Code of Laws.

I didn't go ahead with the "Vacancies" Code because I wanted to toss up a suggestion.

For the Justices, perhaps not having ruled on (or even commented on) a Judicial Review/Citizen's Complaint within 7 days would be the equivalent ot 2 Turnchats. So long as they comment on any JR/CC during that time, they are still "Present".

And if there are no new JR/CCs within a 7 day period, that won't count against them.

So, how do we write this "Second Section" to CoL "2"?

Just a note. These CoL Amendments should be labeled CoL G ~ Leadership Positions (or some comparable title). So far:

the Amendment about Deputies would be labeled G.1
the Amendment about Vacancies would be labeled G.2
the Amendment about Confirmation Polls would be G.3

This numbering would basically match the appropriate sections of Article G. Speaking of which, I would think Article G would need to be ratified before the CoL amendments were. Anyway, this numbering system would give us a working format that would allow change in the future.

I thoiught that the CoL section pertaining to ammending the Code of Laws was labled "I" to mean Roman for 1, meaning the next number would be II. Your method still works with the 1 we have, except it should now be labled I-1 or I:1

No, "CoL I ~ Amending the Code of Laws" is Law "I", as in the letter I. It coresponds with Article I of the Constitution. Laws in the CoL should be Lettered to the Article they are linked to, as much as possible. It's not neccessary to match exactly, but an attempt should be made for easy reference.

After consultations with the Chief Justice, I have modified Section 3 to allow for cases where 2 Justices are found in "Absentia" at the same time. Striken statements are in itallics, while added statements are bolded.

Article G
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 12 hours of the upcomming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an
absence, a pro-tem justice(s) may be appointed by the
Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if
absent) and confirmed by the remaining justices and the
President and the remaining justice if not also absent. If
both the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate are absent,
the Public Defender may appoint pro-tems to the other seats,
with Presidential approval.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

The last sentence in Section 3 merely completes the line of succession, that is if both the CJ and the JA are absent, the PD is next up.

I guess we should restart the clock to discuss cases of absenses of 2 or all 3 Justices at the same time...

Actually, in the original intent for the creation of the Judiciary, the PD followed the CJ and was followed by the JA. But that doesn't really matter. In my court they would both be equally valuable.

How about this? Is it too complicated for what we need?

and the remaining justice if not also absent. If
both the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate (or Public Defender) are absent,
the remaining Justice may appoint pro-tems to the other seats,
with Presidential approval.

:) Another thing I wanted to point out was the wording of Article G.4 doesn't really mesh with the wording in G.3.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an
absence, a pro-tem justice(s) may be appointed by the
Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if
absent) and confirmed by the remaining justice if not also absent. If
both the Chief Justice and the Judge Advocate are absent,
the Public Defender may appoint pro-tems to the other seats,
with Presidential approval.


4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the
President must appoint that citizen. This appointment
may be challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting
a confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.

If you feel there is no conflict, then don't worry about it. I'm just used to people finding little inconsistancies and playing them out.

First message: The way I see it, the retained portions of Section 3 imply that the CoC is CJ first, then JA, implying that PD is last. So, if the CJ is the only absentee, then the JA appoints and the Pres & PD approve. If the JA's the only absentee, then the CJ appoints and the Pres & PD approve. If both are absent, the only guy left to appoint pro-tems is the PD.

Second Message: Yeah, I sometimes see these little logic loops too... didn't see that one. Perhaps:

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant Executive or Legislative office, or to the Judiciary if all three Judicial Positions are declared "Vacant".

And now, we run into circular logic again... I mean if all 3 Jurists are absent for more than 7 days, then who is there to call them "absent"?

First message: The way I see it, the retained portions of Section 3 imply that the CoC is CJ first, then JA, implying that PD is last. So, if the CJ is the only absentee, then the JA appoints and the Pres & PD approve. If the JA's the only absentee, then the CJ appoints and the Pres & PD approve. If both are absent, the only guy left to appoint pro-tems is the PD.
Yes, ty. I understood what you were saying, but as you mentioned below a small logic loop existsed in the Section 3 wording that could be exploited. If the situation arose where the CJ and PD were absent, according to Section 3, the JA would appoint a CJ and not be confirmed by the remaining Justice because he too would be absent. It then does not say the President will also confirm. That is only mentioned if the CJ and the JA are absent. That's why I suggested the wording I did. ;)

Second Message: Yeah, I sometimes see these little logic loops too... didn't see that one. Perhaps:

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any vacant Executive or Legislative office, or to the Judiciary if all three Judicial Positions are declared "Vacant".

And now, we run into circular logic again... I mean if all 3 Jurists are absent for more than 7 days, then who is there to call them "absent"?

First of all, your last question should be "If all three Justices are absent (using either of the parameters listed), then who is there to call the positions vacant?" I believe the answer to that would be "only the President". The President would then appoint a Chief Justice, who would assume control of the Court, according to the rules.

In regards to the wording of 4., if a Justice were absent (according to either parameter listed) then the appropriate Justice would declare the position "vacant" and appoint a pro tem. (Speaking of parameters, what happened to the parameters mentioned by Ravensfire? Something like 3 days without responding to a CC or 7 days without responding to a JR? I'll have to check my PMs.) So, my question was, if the CJ (or whichever Justice) declared the positon vacant, would the President then be eligible to appoint the pro tem?

Your rewording covers the problem I stated, but should read that the President only appoints the CJ, who would assume control of the Court, according to the rules. :) Damn, I talk a lot...

EDIT: You metioned the parameters in post #103 (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=2139709&postcount=103), but I thought that Ravensfire had do so too.

Ravensfire is currently banned :rolleyes:, therefore we have been communicating via PM. He has resent the parameters, which I have posted below, with additional comments:

3. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial matter for three days,
the remaining Justices may declare the Justice Absent. If a Justice has not
posted on any active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining Justices
may declare the office Vacant.

Section 1 covers the planned absences, 2 is Exec/Legis vacancies, 3 is the
Judicial absence/vacancies.

1 more day of PM madness ...

-- Ravensfire




Thank you. This is what I was looking for. The question is about the
difference between an absence and a vacancy in the Judiciary. An absence
is called after 3 days allowing a protem to be appointed? An absence of 7
days allows a permanent replacement? Is that the difference in the two?
And if the Office is vacant, the CJ appoints, not the Prez.

Cyc



Exactly right. The pro-tem is to keep the wheels of justice moving in a
timely manner. Hopefully a 3 day delay isn't considered excessive by most.
The 7 day period allows for the real-life issues that always seem to crop up.
After 7 days, it's time to find a permanent replacement for the justice.

You're also right about the Prez appointing to fill a Vacancy. Like all
vacancies, it's his call, usual confirmation poll stuff applies. There
isn't a seperate section for Judicial Vacancies because they are
treated the same as all other elected positions.

Getting close to nailing this down!

-- Ravensfire

Ravensfire feels like the President should appoint in a vacancy in all instances. This may well be the way to go. I personally like the means used for the protem appointment, but Ravensfire's way keeps us consistant throughout the governmental offices.

I'm back!

I like the idea of the President always filling Vacancies - it's simple and consistent. If a poor candidate is appointed, the remaining members of the Judiciary can always post a cofirmation poll, and lobby against the candidate.

The pro-tem is for planned absences and for unplanned, short-term absences on the bench. I'll post the full proposed poll with the last version of the text Cyc, Sir Donald II and I have been discussing in a following post.

Summary of changes in posts below:
* Article G.2 - modified time for deputies to post to 24 hours
* Section G.3.C - modified to handle all members of Judiciary absent

-- Ravensfire

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of an Article to the Constitution. Please review the legislation carefully before voting:

Article G
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one
month. Each position will be granted to the candidate
receiving the largest number of votes in that election.
In the event of a tie between two or more front
runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those
candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be
repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie.

2. All Exexutive and Legislative positions shall have a
deputy. The Deputy will be permitted to conduct the
affairs of the office as directed, or during a planned
Absence of the elected official. If no instructions have
been posted for an office within 24 hours of the upcoming
Turn Chat, the deputy for that office may post the official
instructions for the office.

3. The Judiciary does not use deputies. In the event of an
Absence, a pro-tem justice(s) may be appointed by the
Chief Justice (or Judge Advocate if the Chief Justice if
absent) and confirmed by the President and the
remaining justice if not also absent. If both the Chief
Justice and the Judge Advocate are absent, the Public
Defender may appoint pro-tems to the other seats,
with Presidential approval.

4. The President will appoint a citizen to any Vacant
office. If a deputy exists for that office, the President
must appoint that citizen. This appointment may be
challenged by any citizen by that citizen posting a
confirmation poll within 24 hours of the appointment.


Please Vote:
YES, I approve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Article I of the Constitution.

-- Ravensfire

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of a Section to the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting:

CoL G.1 - Deputies
A. For all positions using deputies, a deputy must be
selected in the following manner: If the election was
not contested, any citizen may be appointed. If the
election was contested, the deputy position must be
offered to the runner-up in the election. Should that
citizen decline, the office holder may seek any citizen
for the position. If there is a tie for runner-up, the
deputy may be chosen from all those citizens that
are tied. However, all of the tied citizens must decline
before any other citizen may be appointed deputy for
that office.


Please Vote:
YES, I approve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Section I (1) of the Code of Laws.

-- Ravensfire

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of a Section to the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting:

CoL G.2 - Confirmation Polls
A. Confirmation polls are used to challenge the appoinement
of a citizen to an elected office. Any citizen may
create a confirmation poll, should one not already exist.
This poll must be created within 24 hours of the
appointment, and ask the question "Do you approve of the
appointment of <citizen name> to the office of <office
name>?", with Yes, No and Abstain option. This poll is
to be private, as it is a form of an election. The poll
will run for 2 days. At the end of the time, if a
majority of the citizens vote "No", the appointment is
overturned. Any other result approves the appointment.


Please Vote:
YES, I approve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Section I (1) of the Code of Laws.

-- Ravensfire

This is a Proposed Poll for the addition of a Section to the Code of Laws. Please review the legislation carefully before voting:

CoL G.3 - Vacancies
A. An official or Justice may declare themselves to be
Absent for a period of time. During this time, the deputy
or pro-tem will act with all power and duties of that office,
surrendering them to the official or Justice when they
return or at the end of the planned absence, whichever
comes first.

B. Should an official fail to post instructions for 2
consecutive turn chats without prior notice, the
Judiciary may declare that office Vacant.

C. If a Justice has not posted on any active Judicial
matter for three days, the remaining Justices may declare
the Justice Absent. If a Justice has not posted on any
active Judicial matter for seven days, the remaining
Justices may declare the office Vacant. If all three
Justices fail to post on any active Judicial matter for
7 days, the President may declare all Judicial offices
Vacant, and immediately appoint a Chief Justice.


Please Vote:
YES, I apporve the Article as written
NO, I do not approve
ABSTAIN, I have no opinion

This poll will be open for 96 hours, and is Subject to Section I (1) of the Code of Laws.

-- Ravensfire

The last 3 proposed polls should say Code of Laws instead of Constitution. This is not a substantial change and should not reset the 24 hour window for citizen comment.

The last 3 proposed polls should say Code of Laws instead of Constitution. This is not a substantial change and should not reset the 24 hour window for citizen comment.

DOH! :wallbash: :wallbash:

I have edited the above as DS noted.

-- Ravensfire

No problemo. As I said to SD3, cosmetic changes are not a big deal to the Court. You didn't make changes to the content of the Lesgilation, so I see no real problem timestamp-wise.