Amendment to Article H. of Constitution

Should the amendment to Article H be ratified?

  • Yes

    Votes: 34 85.0%

  • No

    Votes: 4 10.0%

  • Abstain

    Votes: 2 5.0%
  • Total voters
    40
  • Poll closed .
C

Comnenus

AKA Kenshin
Joined
Jun 9, 2004
Messages
432
Location
Cadillac, MI
Code: 
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?


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

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.

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, 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.
 
Noldodan said:
I voted NO to this poll for the following reason: according to the results of this poll, it has been determined that people should be allowed to run in more than one election at a time.
Click to expand...
term 1 proved that that was a bad idea
 
Noldodan said:
I voted NO to this poll for the following reason: according to the results of this poll, it has been determined that people should be allowed to run in more than one election at a time.
Click to expand...

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

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...
 
mhcarver said:
I believe you need 38 votes
Click to expand...

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
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Samson
  • Poll Poll
Can a Marxist revolutionary get elected president and sort out the economy?
5 6 7
Replies
120
Views
8K
Samson
Samson
Recursive
Forum Reorganization and New VP Congress
2
Replies
22
Views
4K
Recursive
Recursive
Duke William of Normandy
  • Poll Poll
[NFP] What Civilizations do you want to see next? And do you want Civilization 6 to be expanded more? 3
12 13 14
Replies
278
Views
37K
Ryansinbela
Ryansinbela
I
Entering the ranks of Putin and Erdogan: Xi Jinping to abolish presidential term limit in China
Replies
3
Views
1K
warpus
warpus
mrt144
Attorney General Jeff Sessions Failed to Disclose Meetings with Russians
Replies
9
Views
820
JollyRoger
JollyRoger
Back
Top Bottom