Okays people, here we go again:

What do you think about deputies? How should they get into their positions? (If enough support goes away from the existing method of election runner-up, I may consider a constitutional ammendment proposal).

When will you people give up?! With the chat stopping, the 5CC, so many things repolled. Why must everything be repolled the moment we get more voters?! Just live with it! I'm tired of this!

Well, at least we can't have a forth poll on 5CC. But seriously, this was decided by a poll, and no one seems to mind now. There are a number of deputies doing their jobs currently. I am one of them. I fought hard for my position, and I would like to think that I deserve at least to be deputy. Why should I not get that because the guy who beat me did? The people wanted me almost as much as they wanted Noldodan, so I should almost get the job. Why do you want to change this?

And the direct election idea is just a way to get even more pointless elections. Deputy is not an actual position, and I really don't think that giving it elections on its own is a good idea. I don't see why anyone would run in the first place. Its just a waste, really.

I think this idea is useless like Epimethius says. These Deputy elections would be Time consuming, time should be spent in playing the game...I say no go to any of the choices. The person they elect to join the government should be the one to appoint and fire Deputies as they so choose.

KtarraMoon
Newbie to Demogame

Welcome to the game, KtarraMoon. :) Apparently, you missed the second option which states that deputies should be appointed by the Department leader.

I too voted for leader appointment.

Epimethius and other new players, let me ask you this:

In securing a deputy position, do you find it preferable to be awarded the deputy spot as a mere booby prize just for playing, or would it mean more to be recognized by a leader and gain a position that way?

Whether you believe it or not, the Demogame vets are notorious for nurturing new talent. We want the newbies to stick around and we feel a sense of pride when a former newcomer reaches new heights and joins the old guard themselves. So to me, the appointment process builds community because it allows citizens to select other citizens to join their cause.

Ask Rik Meleet about Cyc. Ask DaveShack about me. Ask me about Shaitan, donsig....or Cyc. Ask Cyc about.......wait, Cyc was born here. :lol:

Point is, we have all been new to the game at one time, know what it's like to feel left out in the beginning, and know how good it feels for a vet to recognize your efforts. Unfortunately, we have never had the opportunity(save for DG3, I think) to do this within the government construct because we have almost always just soullessly defaulted to the guy in second place.

Not that it's a total bad thing, but the deputy and the leader were opponents during the election, and now they are supposed to put aside their differences and run a department smoothly. Don't get me wrong...sometimes it works out. But I still believe that the leader should be able to choose his/her own staff, and in many cases would probably retain the second-place vote getter.

Why don't we try it and see. An appointment can be immediate and can be subject to a refusal poll. Vote Appointed by election winner!

Sike and I were mayors of Khatovar consecutively when you were but a wee lad in the demogame DZ.

Then I was just a gleam in my dad's eye at that point, Morty. ;) I joined the game in DG2 Term 2.

I suddenly feel as though I wasted my best years arguing with Bill_In_PDX.... :cry:

I believe Deputies should be the runner up. I also believe that we should be able to cast two votes for each position. That way the Deputy would be elected. Hmmm, do I sense a future amendment?

What for are deputies??? I thought it is Democracy game and every citizen is represented by himself. Demogame society is so small that it no need deputies. I will not vote on this poll :shakehead

I agree with Comnenus here, cumulation is the way to go, two votes for each post. However, if the candidates are too different...we need another solution.

I agree with Comnenus here, cumulation is the way to go, two votes for each post. However, if the candidates are too different...we need another solution.

Currently, there is no way to efficiently limit voters to just two votes. They can either votes for one option, or vote for multiple options. when multiple options is chosen by the poll creator, the voter can vote for as many options as they like. The honor system is to difficult to maitain. :)

Deputies should be the Runner up of election for ministerial position.

I believe Deputies should be the runner up. I also believe that we should be able to cast two votes for each position. That way the Deputy would be elected. Hmmm, do I sense a future amendment?

Funny, I don't smell anything....or do I? :dubious: ;)

I would never support a law that would recognize votes for what is essentially an internship, and I am sure I would get some backing on that. Why water down the electoral process?

Besides that, it would be much too hard to implement, as Cyc said.

Let's sponsor legislation that will bring these two factions closer together; not farther apart.

Meant to hit runner up elections instead of direct elections. (mis-read the poll option)

-if there is a major policy difference, I have poblem with runner ups.
In that case I am for direct appointmens by minister.

Deputies should be appointed by the Winner of the Elections because then the two people will hopefully know each other quite well or have respect and understanding and so work better than if two people who dont know each other and disagree on policy thrown together by chance...the elections are chance as to the runner up, he isn't the second most popular, but Ill leave that to the side.

Deputies appointed by Ministers!

deputies should be appointed, because then someone who lost in an election is put into office, maybe the reason some ppl didnt vote for the person that is deputy, is because they dont like him/her

I am strongly against having the deputies being appointed. I personaly think that this is a bad idea as seen in DG4. Personaly, I beleve that the runner-up canidates should be made deputies. I disagree with Black Hole's reason since there are other people who voted for that canadate to see him/her as a leader but for some reason, only gets to the runner-up position.

Also, this is getting a little tireing since we already had a poll regarding deputies and we chose that Deputies are chosen by whom ever was the runner-up in the elections. I dont beleve we should go mucking around with the set up we decided early before the game started.

Runner-up get's the position. Personaly, I'd like the elections to go as fast as they could. We'll get both positions filled with one poll, with no waiting.

Why should the runner up get the position? The runnerup is the first lose (no offense here) so why would he/she get a deputy position? Ministers need to be able to pick their own staff so they can run their portion of the gov smoothly. This would be like having Bush being pres and Gore being VP, not a very good idea.

runner up. look at fier and me. if our ministers had to appoint people, the culture and science departments would be sitting doing nothing right now. instead, we're doing things for our bosses while they're on vacation.

runner up. look at fier and me. if our ministers had to appoint people, the culture and science departments would be sitting doing nothing right now. instead, we're doing things for our bosses while they're on vacation.

True. But 75% of the time, the deputy job does nothing at all, exept having a tad more worth for decisions by the minister.

( I remember the time of DG3, when I was Governor of Caelian, Deputy Governor of Quarinal and Mayor of Alqualondë. Now, that was some great time.)

Personally, I believe the Boss should appoint his assistant, in other words the Department Leader should appoint the Deputy. But as our electoral process can sometimes be a mess, or just plain catch a snag somehow, I believe we should have it so that the runner-up is the Deputy until the Leader officially appoints one.

I voted for option 2.

I agreee with 100 % with Cyc here.

Personally, Bootstoots is a fine deputy, and I will keep him as long as he is faithful to the policies I was elected for.

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

Again, Noldodan is one of the wiser people we have on board, people should listen to him more. And yes, I read about Tao, and I am not him.

I agree on the runner up deputy until another is appointment

Slogan

Disappointment leads to Appointment, Runner Up or Runner Out

I personaly realy dont like the idea of appointing deputy nor the idea of having this proposed "runner up deputy untill another is appointed". In general, I am against apointing deputies after the elections if there are 2 or more canidates. I find the accepable practace of appointing deputies is if the minister runs unapposed or if the deputy leaves for a very long absence due to RL situations.

Personaly, I feel that the runner-up deputies should be practaced and should be used, I would agree with Stuck on this manner.

Again

I am happy with SAAM you civ general and bootstoots, and I think none will be replaced.
Yet, if my foreign affair deputy trades away iron in my absence, that will most certainly lead to a new appointment if legally allowed. The idea is to let the public get what they voted on, not the adverse solution.

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

I truly believe that we should have either or, but not this idea. I really don't like the thought of some deputies being selectively dumped, while others are retained. The process needs to be static, and I would prefer our current model to this proposal.

As evidenced by myself and CivGeneral's posts, this solution would not appease either side of this issue. But I personally appreciate the suggestion, Noldodan, as it was an attempt at compromise.

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

Not that it matters to me Noldo, but i believe we came up with the idea at around the same time in different threads. You can take the credit if you'd like. :)

DZ, I still disagree with you on this point. It's fair, it's efficient, and it makes for solid Leadership.

DZ

Do not forget that the runner up may or may not have another policy platform.
I will surely make my deputy agree on certain things in my absence.
The minister must be able to rely on a team that follows the same program as promised in the elections, or the elections are not that important.

Not that it matters to me Noldo, but i believe we came up with the idea at around the same time in different threads.
Huh. I guess great minds do think alike... not that that applies to either of us.

i voted other, so here goes...

When a minister runs for office he should be required to announce BEFORE the election who his deputy will be. Thus they should run in pairs. This should work the same way for the Pres. and VP...though I will say I would simply like it to better spelled out than not spelled out well at all, even if it goes some way i dont like.

i voted other, so here goes...

When a minister runs for office he should be required to announce BEFORE the election who his deputy will be. Thus they should run in pairs. This should work the same way for the Pres. and VP...though I will say I would simply like it to better spelled out than not spelled out well at all, even if it goes some way i dont like.

I'm afraid that his will be tagged as 'block voting', and is thus moderator-unfriendly.

Anyway, in DG 1, 2 and 3, we had the runner-up getting the Deputy position, and it has worked well. Why would we change when the DG4 nomination model has been called 'unfair'?

It seems EVERYONE complains about this or that being undemocratic, and yet, a sizeable number of citizens want the Deputy to be appointed rather than elected. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. It sounds like support of cronyism. Certainly, the runnerup did not receive the most votes, that's why they're called the runnerup. But they did receive VOTES. I don't understand why some people can't see that. If the Deputy positions go to the 2nd place VOTE getter in an election, then I submit that they HAVE been elected.

I like the Idea of appointing the deputies because like someone said Earlier It would be like Gore becoming VP of Bush or Mcgovern becoming Nixons VP,And I like Nolodans Idea but I think there has to be a deadline to appoint your own deputy as to make sure that a deputy doesn't get jettisoned in the middle of the month for some reason.

I'm afraid that his will be tagged as 'block voting', and is thus moderator-unfriendly.

Anyway, in DG 1, 2 and 3, we had the runner-up getting the Deputy position, and it has worked well. Why would we change when the DG4 nomination model has been called 'unfair'?
I would agree with you on that Fier. We should not change something that has been working for the past 3 demogames. As the old saying goes, If it aint broke, dont fix it. I for one am still dead set for deputies being the runner-ups in the elections. And I am dead set against appointing deputies (Exception is if the Canidate win unapposed), I for one dislike the idea of appointing deputies is that it forces the losers to scramble to search for a deputy job. Demogame 4 was a dog-eat-dog when it comes to appointing deputies. Demogame 1-3 was more laid back in that there was a security knowing that the deputies are selected by a runner-up in elections.

Again as I pointed out, there was a poll before the start of the demogame regarding deputies and the result came out "Runner-Up in elections are automadicly deputies" (I dont remember the exact wording on the poll choice) as the winner. I beleve that we should stick to that choice.

Why should the runner up get the position? The runnerup is the first lose (no offense here) so why would he/she get a deputy position? Ministers need to be able to pick their own staff so they can run their portion of the gov smoothly. This would be like having Bush being pres and Gore being VP, not a very good idea.

This makes me think of American history. The vice president was originally the runner up in the presidental race. This was used because there were (for a very short time) no political parties and they were not wanted. In 1796 (unsure about the year), John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, members of the opposing parties, became president and vice president. Of course, we don't have political parties, so this should not be an issue. This probably doesn't affect how we should elect deputies, however. Regardless, I shall go with the runner-up, especially based on the participation in the first elections of this demogame.

Yuck. Equally split.

This makes me think of American history. The vice president was originally the runner up in the presidental race. This was used because there were (for a very short time) no political parties and they were not wanted. In 1796 (unsure about the year), John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, members of the opposing parties, became president and vice president. Of course, we don't have political parties, so this should not be an issue. This probably doesn't affect how we should elect deputies, however. Regardless, I shall go with the runner-up, especially based on the participation in the first elections of this demogame.

Our President and Vice President don't make most of the decisions like the Leaders of the USA did in the early years of the Constitution. Here everything is up for vote so it doesnt matter :D

Yuck. Equally split.



Our President and Vice President don't make most of the decisions like the Leaders of the USA did in the early years of the Constitution. Here everything is up for vote so it doesnt matter :D

My God! No wonder the Greeks kept vacillating between despotism and democracy!

Hmmm. Vacillating...Is there olive oil involved with that?

:lol: Sorry, j/k

Huh. I guess great minds do think alike... not that that applies to either of us.

True. But what strikes me as funny is that Noldo and I have the same sane idea of how to bring Deputies into Office, but we voted for different options. Did your fingers slip, Noldo?

What for are deputies??? I thought it is Democracy game and every citizen is represented by himself. Demogame society is so small that it no need deputies. I will not vote on this poll

It true for the most part, except that [almost] everone here is commited to a "real life," dispite the fact it interfears with Civ :cry: :cry: :cry: . So sometimes, the elected officals cannot carry out there duities, and need someone to take over temporaraly. And that why we have deputies.

Look at the American gov today. Assistants to the pres and each secretary aren't elected, they're appointed. This may not seem very democratic but it works because the assistans are chosen because they can together as a team and have the same views.

What you say is true TimBentley, we don't have political parties, but we have people with different views and different schools of thought. What would happen if we were to elect a very aggressive FA and a submissive deputy FA and the FA had to go away for a little while? Wouldn't our foreign policy take a 180 degree turn due to the submissive posture of the deputy? We did
elect the FA and all the ministers based on their viewpoints, ideas, and suggested actions.

This system may not be broken, but it will eventually hit a snag. I agree we shouldn't fix it if it isn't broken, but we should change it before it reaches breaking point, which in this case, will eventually happen.

But everyone here is, for the most part, friendly and willing to work togher for the good of the game.

Due to the nature of this poll and subsequent discussion, Article G of the Constitution has been delayed. Since there are such strong opinions on this subject and the voters are clearly divided at this time, including verbage regarding how to select deputies would certainly doom any proposed Article that included it.

i have to say im with CG on this one. you have to remember- what if the elected official chooses a deputy who is not fit for the position? or, even worse, what if the elected official chooses a certain deputy "asked nicely" (if you know what i mean), OR BECAUSE the elected official had promised the future deputy a spot on the board? can you understand what im saying? Favoritism. I can see tons of scandals and screw-ups down the road if we choose to have the leaders appoint deputies. come on- look at DGs 1-3. Back then, before some of you had even registered at this board, we were using the "runner-up" method. it was perfect.

to the person who said "he was the first to lose"....doesnt that make him the second-best person for the job? think about it.