law/Amendment regarding number of candidacies?

Comnenus · Aug 1, 2004

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

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

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

Donovan Zoi · Aug 1, 2004

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

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

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

Code:

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

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

Comnenus · Aug 1, 2004

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

Code:

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

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

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

Comnenus · Aug 1, 2004

Code:

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

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

KCCrusader · Aug 1, 2004

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

Donovan Zoi · Aug 1, 2004

@KCC - As far as I know, Article H has now evolved into what is shown in either Post #42 or #44. Runoffs are now addressed in the Article G thread(which has yet to be ratified), which is still in discussion mode.

KCCrusader · Aug 1, 2004

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

Cyc · Aug 2, 2004

I like the Proposed Amendment in post #42 the best, as it seems more inclusive than just naming Branches. That way there is less of a chance for changes that may not be apparent to us.

Donovan Zoi · Aug 2, 2004

I actually forgot to respond to Comnenus' proposal. :blush:

And I do agree with Cyc that the more information the better, especially with our current bare bones ruleset.

Comnenus · Aug 2, 2004

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

Comnenus · Aug 3, 2004

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

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

Comnenus · Aug 3, 2004

Vote Now on this Proposed Amendment to Article H.

law/Amendment regarding number of candidacies?

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

Donovan Zoi

The Return

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

KCCrusader

Defending the Holy Land

Donovan Zoi

The Return

KCCrusader

Defending the Holy Land

Cyc

Looking for the door...

Donovan Zoi

The Return

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin

Similar threads