Amendment to Article H. of Constitution

Comnenus · Aug 03, 2004, 09:54 AM

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, 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.

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

Cyc · Aug 03, 2004, 10:00 AM

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

Noldodan · Aug 03, 2004, 10:14 AM

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.

Cyc · Aug 03, 2004, 10:37 AM

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

superpelon · Aug 03, 2004, 11:52 AM

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

donsig · Aug 03, 2004, 11:58 AM

I have voted yes.

Black_Hole · Aug 03, 2004, 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noldodan

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.

term 1 proved that that was a bad idea

Comnenus · Aug 03, 2004, 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noldodan

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.

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.

Epimethius · Aug 03, 2004, 05:07 PM

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

blackheart · Aug 03, 2004, 05:21 PM

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.

Cyc · Aug 03, 2004, 09:32 PM

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.

KCCrusader · Aug 03, 2004, 11:20 PM

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

jst666 · Aug 04, 2004, 12:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KCCrusader

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.

Cyc · Aug 04, 2004, 03:27 AM

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

Bobby Lee · Aug 04, 2004, 12:28 PM

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...

Black_Hole · Aug 04, 2004, 01:22 PM

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

mhcarver · Aug 04, 2004, 01:45 PM

I believe you need 38 votes

Comnenus · Aug 04, 2004, 01:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mhcarver

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.

Comnenus · Aug 04, 2004, 02:02 PM

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.

mhcarver · Aug 04, 2004, 05:24 PM

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

View Poll Results: Should the amendment to Article H be ratified?
Yes	34	85.00%
No	4	10.00%
Abstain	2	5.00%
Voters: 40. You may not vote on this poll

Aug 03, 2004, 09:54 AM	#1
Comnenus AKA Kenshin Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cadillac, MI Posts: 432	Amendment to Article H. of Constitution 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, 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. This poll will remain open for 96 hours, after which time it shall be considered to be Ratified or Defeated.

Aug 03, 2004, 10:00 AM	#2
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	I voted YES, these are good changes. But you still didn't make this a Public Poll, Comnenus. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Aug 03, 2004, 10:14 AM	#3
Noldodan 2 years of waiting... Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Gondolin! Posts: 1,747	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. __________________ Join Ferion! Turn-based space strategy game, but different from Civ. Give it a try.

Aug 03, 2004, 10:37 AM	#4
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	Noldy, that poll was almost a month ago. We've learned some important lessons since then. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Aug 03, 2004, 11:52 AM	#5
superpelon DemoGame Pelon Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Fanatikku Posts: 164	Its important not to concentrate power into the hands of a few individuals. I vote YES.

Aug 03, 2004, 11:58 AM	#6
donsig Low level intermediary Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: Rochester, NY Posts: 12,873	I have voted yes. __________________ Still playing after all these years.

Aug 03, 2004, 05:07 PM	#9
Epimethius Wish I Hadn't Been Here Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 770	I say No. While a limit is good, one is too strict.

Aug 03, 2004, 05:21 PM	#10
blackheart unenlightened Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Chicago Posts: 8,632	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. __________________ Relax, it will all be alright.

Aug 03, 2004, 09:32 PM	#11
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	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. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Aug 03, 2004, 11:20 PM	#12
KCCrusader Defending the Holy Land Join Date: Jul 2004 Location: Kansas City, KS, USA Posts: 211	I vote Yes. Its wrong to run for something, win, then pull out of the race because you won another race.

Aug 04, 2004, 03:27 AM	#14
Cyc Looking for the door... Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Behind you Posts: 14,735	15 more YES votes, people! A little help here. __________________ There is a town in north Ontario, With dream comfort memory to spare, And in my mind I still need a place to go, All my changes were there. Blue, blue windows behind the stars, Yellow moon on the rise, Big birds flying across the sky, Throwing shadows on our eyes.

Aug 04, 2004, 12:28 PM	#15
Bobby Lee Confederate General Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: The Great State of Texas Posts: 518	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...

Aug 04, 2004, 01:22 PM	#16
Black_Hole Deity Join Date: Jan 2004 Posts: 3,424	Vote Yes ! btw does anyone know how many votes this takes to pass? __________________ Black_Hole

Aug 04, 2004, 01:45 PM	#17
mhcarver Newspaper Mogul Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In the Press room Posts: 768	I believe you need 38 votes

Aug 04, 2004, 02:02 PM	#19
Comnenus AKA Kenshin Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: Cadillac, MI Posts: 432	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.

Aug 04, 2004, 05:24 PM	#20
mhcarver Newspaper Mogul Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: In the Press room Posts: 768	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

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Amendment to Article I, Constitution and creation of Section I.1, Code of Laws	Bootstoots	Civ3 - Demo Game VII: Polls	6	Nov 25, 2005 05:06 PM
Proposed Amendment to Article C of the Constitution	Bootstoots	Civ3 - Demo Game VII: Polls	16	Oct 14, 2005 09:34 PM
Constitutional Amendment: Article O and Article P	Cheetah	C3C - Inter-site Demo Game: High Council	8	Mar 11, 2005 09:42 AM
Amendment to Article I of the Constitution	Donovan Zoi	Civ3 - Demo Game V: Polls	46	Aug 09, 2004 02:13 PM
Constitutional Amendment: Article E	Comnenus	Civ3 - Demo Game V: Polls	34	Aug 06, 2004 06:47 PM

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2013, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com \| Amazon UK \| Amazon DE \| Amazon CA \| Amazon FR