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

Should article H. of the Constitution be amended as follows?



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

The text in bold indicates the wording in Article H which would be changed if the Amendment is ratified.

To see the discussion of this amendment and how it was arrived at, please click here. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95241)

This poll will remain open for 96 hours, after which time it shall be considered to be Ratified or Defeated.

I voted YES, these are good changes. But you still didn't make this a Public Poll, Comnenus. :nono:

I voted NO to this poll for the following reason: according to the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93790) it has been determined that people should be allowed to run in more than one election at a time.

:rolleyes: Noldy, that poll was almost a month ago. We've learned some important lessons since then.

Its important not to concentrate power into the hands of a few individuals. I vote YES.

I have voted yes.

I voted NO to this poll for the following reason: according to the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93790) it has been determined that people should be allowed to run in more than one election at a time.
term 1 proved that that was a bad idea

I voted NO to this poll for the following reason: according to the results of this poll, (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=93790) it has been determined that people should be allowed to run in more than one election at a time.

I took a look at that poll. While a slim majority of votes cast called for multiple candidacies, I believe you are misrepresenting the poll outcome by saying it was "determined". The options to have a limited number of nomination acceptances and to have only one nomination accepted per citizen tied with 8 votes each. Only 2 votes were cast for unlimited nominations. Even if you consider that most voters wanted some version of allowing multiple candidacies, the number allowed was never determined (unless you can point out a subsequent poll on the issue.) And following proper polling procedures, supporters of an unlimited number of nominations lost outright, and there should have been a runoff poll for the two options that tied. Therefore, this was never determined.

I say No. While a limit is good, one is too strict.

I vote no. Allowing people to run for multiple offices does not concentrate power in the hands of the few. It encourages democracy by adding more competition for candidates.

Bah! Only allowing a citizen to accept one Nomination by Election time opens up more Offices to more people. It's the right way to go.

I vote Yes. Its wrong to run for something, win, then pull out of the race because you won another race.

I vote Yes. Its wrong to run for something, win, then pull out of the race because you won another race.

Good reasoning, it's YES.

15 more YES votes, people! A little help here. :D

VOTE YES! people need to make up thier minds on what office they want, not simply run for a few (or many) and then take whichever they like best...

Vote Yes !
btw does anyone know how many votes this takes to pass?

I believe you need 38 votes

I believe you need 38 votes

Have to check that. There are 113 registed citizens as of this writing, but Article I says the census is the average number of votes cast in the most recent general election.

I believe the census to be 60: 669 votes cast in last general election (not counting the runoffs), divided by 11 offices voted for, and drop the fraction.

According to Article I we need 2/3 of the census to be Yes votes, therefore the number to pass should be 40.

I was just quoting immortal and possibly cyc(I don't remember and am to lazy to check it out) saying it was 38 but if that's changed then so be it

I was just quoting immortal and possibly cyc(I don't remember and am to lazy to check it out) saying it was 38 but if that's changed then so be it

No, I was informed that 38 is the count. The runoffs are taken into account, and I didn't do that in my calculations. :)

OK, we have 2 1/2 days to get 9 votes. Less pass this one, Japanatica! :D

Just a reminder to please VOTE!

6 votes to go, less than 2 days left.

Please vote now....

:bump:

We need 4 votes for this measure to pass. And while you are here, please vote YES in this thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95999) so that there will be no more hand-wringing about the passage of near-unanimous polls such as this.

Still need 4 votes with a day to go. Vote now, or I'll keep harping on this!

Another one bites the dust with 85% approval.

*sigh*, i guess we have to wait until after the next election

maybe not, with the recent approval of article I we might be able to get this one through

maybe not, with the recent approval of article I we might be able to get this one through
yep, i forgot all about that when I posted above