Constitutional Article Discussion: Article G

Donovan Zoi · Aug 15, 2004

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.

Sir Donald III · Aug 15, 2004

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?

Cyc · Aug 15, 2004

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.

Sir Donald III · Aug 20, 2004

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.

mhcarver · Aug 21, 2004

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

Cyc · Aug 21, 2004

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

DaveShack · Aug 21, 2004

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

Code:

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.

DaveShack · Aug 21, 2004

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

Code:

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.

Sir Donald III · Aug 22, 2004

DaveShack said:
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?

Donovan Zoi · Aug 22, 2004

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

Code:

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.

DaveShack · Aug 22, 2004

Donovan Zoi said:
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.

Donovan Zoi · Aug 23, 2004

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.

ravensfire · Aug 23, 2004

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

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, 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

DaveShack · Aug 23, 2004

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!

Sir Donald III · Aug 23, 2004

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.

ravensfire · Aug 24, 2004

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

Provolution · Aug 24, 2004

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.

ravensfire · Aug 25, 2004

My proposal, with changes suggested by Sir Donald III:

Code:

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

Cyc · Aug 25, 2004

Ravensfire said:
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.

Sir Donald III · Aug 29, 2004

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.)

Constitutional Article Discussion: Article G

The Return

Emperor

Looking for the door...

Emperor

Newspaper Mogul

Looking for the door...

Inventor

Inventor

Emperor

The Return

Inventor

The Return

Member of the Opposition

Inventor

Emperor

Member of the Opposition

Sage of Quatronia

Member of the Opposition

Looking for the door...

Emperor

Similar threads