discussion: only run for 1 position?

Our constitution says in article G, section 6, says:

And i have some urgent concers about this:
D: this makes sense, if we have 100s of participating ppl so all offices get at least 2 nominees. as we see now, we will hardly manage to fill all position due to this rule.
E: this is nonsens, as because of D noone will be able to run for 2 positions.

D also leads to many ppl willing to participate will be dropped out because they will not be elected for one office, even if they may have won another election.

example:
Citizen A would be the perfect military leader, but also wants to run for a province. He decides to run for the province then, and is not elected there. So our country lost a good military leader, and maybe even a non-elected person get the job because he was the only nominee.
This is bad!
We should change this back to the old rule where you were allowed to run for 2 positions. We should even lift any restrictions of the nomination-count!

I think we need to cap the number of positions you can run for, but 1 only is stupid. It means you HAVE to run in a position you are sure of getting. If for instance, I wanted to millitary leader, I would never be able to even run!! Someone like falcon would probably always kick my ass, it means I've thrown away all hope of holding a government position for a whole term. It means even if I did not like my current position (which is not the case!) I would still probably run for that because you have a better chance if you are incumbent.

It means that people are pretty set in the positions they get! There will be much less movement in this election, and there will also be less new people elected (or if not, only cos there's new provinces and some people retireing).

I have just reasiled that my first paragraph is VERY hard to understand. Basically, what the 1 only rule means is that only one serious candidate will run for each position. Who's gonna run against Falcon or Cyc or Shaitan for their own positions if they running for the positions EVERYONE knows them for, and you can't run in another election. Less voter choice, fewer options for candidates. The 1 only rule is a BAD RULE.

nuf said

I'm not sure whether the current rule is a good or a bad thing... On the one hand it means that we might find some of our better known citizens without a job for a term, but on the other it might also result in newer citizens - who may not have been prepared to run against one of the "big names" in Phoenatican politics - getting positions with real power and thus more of a chance to show us how good they are. And it should also be pointed out that under the old system a number of positions ended up being filled by the citizen who lost the election simply because their opponent secured a more appealing job. That kinda thing might fly in Florida, but I hope we Phoenaticans have higher democratic standards

Well, I only got my job cos the three people ahead of me all got better offers!! What luck, landed straight in the best job!!

I would have to aggre with Almightyjosh. We need to revise that part of the Consitution. We all cannot put all our eggs in just one basket. We need something to be alternately elected into. In the School I go to, The Sutent Elections sometimes has a student that runs for more than one office. If he/she wins both lets ay. Class president and Tresurer. He/she must decide on what office to go into. The runner up would get into office that is not chosen by the student who won two offices.

To be honest, when I first read about the "1 only" rule, I was glad it came about. You see, Almightyjosh, the example you gave about the big names controlling the polls works in the opposite manner also. When people like me (I'm not a big name) look at a position and consider running for it but notice a "big name" on the ballot, I tend to look for another position. But I'm used to finding the same "big names" on several ballots. So what's the point in trying, as you say? With the "only 1" rule, it will open up more positions for people like me. This way it will confine politicians to dedicating themselves to a position, instead of having one foot on the train and one on the platform, so to speak.
So it works both ways, once you've been in a couple of races, you might see my point.

To make everyone happy. I think that accepting two nominations should be a maxiumum. Since I am to running up against a "Big Name" opponent and I only have luck on my side. I could have ran for both military leader and Govenor but the Consitution would not allow it. So I had to decline my nomination for Govenor and run for Military Leader.

Someone like falcon would probably always kick my ass, it means I've thrown away all hope of holding a government position for a whole term. -Almightyjosh

Click to expand...

I would not trow my hope away of Becoming Military Leader (Call me wierd but I am probhibly going to play "The Eye of the Tiger" by Survivor during the elections)

What about: Any citizen holding a position already might only run for 1 position in the upcoming election (he can choose wheter he wants to run for the position he already holds or for another one).
All citizens who dont hold a official position can run for an unlimited number of positions.

This ensures the big-names only run for 1 position and the small ones could nominate for all positions to see where they come out.

Our problem in the last term was that you were only allowed to run for 2 positions. If there are only 3 nominees, where is democraty?

The problem now is that we will end up with only 1 nominee for most of the positions, which is even less democratic.

CivGeneral: you are right. this shows it prevents some ppl from taking new possibilities. Maybe i am a good governor, but still want to try out running for presidency?

Another example:
Chieftess. She was trade-leader before and was nominated for presidency and her old position. If this would not have been allowed, i bet she would not have run for presidency.

What about: Any citizen holding a position already might only run for 1 position in the upcoming election (he can choose wheter he wants to run for the position he already holds or for another one).
All citizens who dont hold a official position can run for an unlimited number of positions.

This ensures the big-names only run for 1 position and the small ones could nominate for all positions to see where they come out.

Our problem in the last term was that you were only allowed to run for 2 positions. If there are only 3 nominees, where is democraty?

The problem now is that we will end up with only 1 nominee for most of the positions, which is even less democratic.

Click to expand...

I smell a poll coming . I see only one flaw with having a big-name vs. the average joe. Any new citizen does not have a clue on who is a big-name or is just an average joe with lots of possitions under his belt. And I do have to aggre that our nomination system should be more of a Democracy fasion insted of a Totalitarian fasion.

Another example:
Chieftess. She was trade-leader before and was nominated for presidency and her old position. If this would not have been allowed, i bet she would not have run for presidency. -disorganizer

Click to expand...

And lets not forget Stuck_in_a_mac and BCLG100. They are both running for two Provances.

There were several reasons for limiting citizens to one campaign position.

• Realism - In RL no politician runs for more than one position.
• Vacancies/shuffling/confusion - Due to people winning 2 offices and vacating one, some offices ended up unfilled. Others ended up with the 3rd or 4th popular choice winning the election. There was mass confusion over who was in what position and the whole thing didn't get sorted out until almost 2 weeks into the term.
• Participation - Big names tend to scare off competition, as Cyc noted. With the big names restricted to a single position there will be more positions overall that people will feel they have a chance to win.

Originally posted by disorganizer
What about: Any citizen holding a position already might only run for 1 position in the upcoming election (he can choose wheter he wants to run for the position he already holds or for another one).
All citizens who dont hold a official position can run for an unlimited number of positions.

This ensures the big-names only run for 1 position and the small ones could nominate for all positions to see where they come out.

Click to expand...

That's not a bad compromise at all. I'd still hold to a maximum of 2 though. This does have a problem in that it establishes a dual standard (one for the office holders and one for the rest). Then again, we have no Constitutional protection against dual standards. In fact, we enforce a dual standard with the Presidential eligibility.

I think I like this...

as the dual standard "discriminates" the office holder (=person with higher power), its ok.
the presidaential dual standard is the other way around (="discriminates" normal citizens).

to the real-live explain: here, its not like this. a office holder could run for any other position. if he fails, he gets his old position back...

to the real-live explain: here, its not like this. a office holder could run for any other position. if he fails, he gets his old position back...

Click to expand...

That's the same here. However, nobody runs for different positions at the same time.

we wernt running for 2 provinces it was an opinion poll it didnt really count and besides then i didnt know you could only run for 1 province which in my opinion is a stupid idea becuase you will just end up in the same position every term becuase everyone else will be too scared of taking on the higher jobs because they think they will probably lose and they dont want to lose there old jobs and have nothing

Originally posted by disorganizer
What about: Any citizen holding a position already might only run for 1 position in the upcoming election (he can choose wheter he wants to run for the position he already holds or for another one).
All citizens who dont hold a official position can run for an unlimited number of positions.

Click to expand...

I like this idea A LOT, with one minor change, and it's the same as Shaitan's change. We should limit the number of positions to two so Jimmy NewGuy doesn't sign up to run for every single position.

Darn it, after reading the thread, I thought we were going to get rid of section E. Oh well.... I can dream on....

I kinda like the 1 position rule for the old guard and 2 for new citizens. It is kind of a double-standard, but it may achieve what we're trying to simulate.

So if noone puts his veto in till tomorrow nite, i think shaitan should post a "reworded" version of this proposal:

* every citizen already holding any official position (governor, leader, president) is allowed to run for 1 position at the elections
* every citizen without a position can run for a maximum of 2 positions at the elections

for example
as worded here, this would lead us to 15 citizens only eligable for one nomination acceptance.
with deputies, this would be 21 i think+ maybe additional deputy governors.

one thing we might discuss: should deputies and mayors be counted as official positions? as well as for example census?
i think no. if yes, only the deputies of the positions mentioned above.

Originally posted by BCLG100
you will just end up in the same position every term becuase everyone else will be too scared of taking on the higher jobs because they think they will probably lose and they dont want to lose there old jobs and have nothing

Click to expand...

That's VERY true. What governor is going to throw away a good shot at re-election to governor for a bad shot at president. In fact, I would bet that cheiftess will run unapposed, or with only one other contender. It means that if you are in a position, thats where you stay. If you look at the list of positions the old guard have been able to have a go at, it's incredible!! Thi means that the group of newer people in governorships will be very hesitant to stand for any leader office. This 1 only system means that you have no oppertunities, if you get a government position, hang on to it for dear life and don't dare run for something elce, cos your old job won't be there if you loose.

Plus, I'm not sure the effect this will have on the feel of the elections. This is supposed to be a friendly enterprise, but this makes elections cutthroat and will make people more ruthless because they don't have a backup plan, so to speak. It changes the whole tone of the game and will likely leave more people very bitter.