Electoral Reform

I am introducing this discussion thread to look at ways of reforming our electoral process.

Since I am very keen on having as many people as possible participate in the running of the game, I have a couple of proposals regarding offcial elections.

From what I can see so far Person X can stand and be elected for the same post for the entire duration of the game. We have 86 members and it would be good if there was a better than fair chance that most of them could hold an elected position at some point in the game.

Therefore I would like to propose the following:

1). A candidate cannot hold the the same office for two consecutive terms.

2). Also that a person cannot hold more than one elected office at once with the exception of the Presidency and the VP.

3). Also that if a person is elected to a Leader position, that person cannot hold any deputy leaderships for his term in office.

4). Finally, that holding multiple Deputy positions is prohibited with the exception of the Vice Presidency.

Please discuss, comment and ammend

1). A candidate cannot hold the the same office for two consecutive terms.

I don't like this at all. It might actually hurt our ability to perform well in the game, as a completely different strategy may be used each month.

2). Also that a person cannot hold more than one elected office at once with the exception of the Presidency and the VP.

I like this, though I don't see any reason to make an exception for the President and VP.

3). Also that if a person is elected to a Leader position, that person cannot hold any deputy leaderships for his term in office.

I like this also.

4). Finally, that holding multiple Deputy positions is prohibited with the exception of the Vice Presidency.

And this I like as well.

All but 1 are fine with me. I was a governor of the same province for 4 terms. Eyrei was FA head for... 6 terms? CT, President for Life . We cant outlaw being the head of a office for more then 2 turns, otherwise we will hurt ourselves.

Thankyou for showing support for 2,3,and 4.
However 1 is the cornerstone of the proposals. SaaM has verified that holding consecutive terms was common in previous demogames. There are 86 members. At the moment the chances of the vast majority of them holding office is minimal. Therefore the game starts to become the preserve of a few as demonstrated by SaaM rather than a game for participation by everyone.
I also dont understand the concern that new people may make bad decisions or confuse the overall strategy.
Surely the point of the game is to get as many people involved as possible. At some point in previous games a person had to be elected for the first time. I just feel that those who have never played before should be given an opportunity to help run things. Wouldn't it be terrible if participation dropped because people felt that they had no means of contributing in the running of the game.
I am not advocating a completley new administration each term. That would be silly. What I am proposing is that the leader of X department can stand for Y department in the next term but not seek re election to the same position.
In this way there will be greater participation from more of the membership. Surely this cant be bad.

If this is part, part 1, is included in the proposal, I will be forced to produce a "Nay" vote for it. Yes, we do have 86 people. But how many of the ACTUALLY participate? I'd say about 20. Many people sign up for the game and then just disapear. Those of us who stay do all the work. We cannot put limits on terms, because if we do, we would end up loosing people. Unfortunatly, your optimisim, while apriciated, is bad. We NEED to not have limits so people like Eyrei can do their job.

PS- Eyrei, please don't come back to FA!

I did not realise that part about participation being that low. Obviously by that standard we would run out of people who were eligible to stand .
What goes into the final proposal is entirely dependent on the results of the discussion. There would be little point in proposing something that had widespread criticism.
My honest concern was that new members who wanted to participate might feel that the odds were stacked against them and so stay in the shadows.
2,3, and 4 do encourage greater participation and I am glad there is support for them so far.

I have dual feelings on point 1.

Yes I am new to the Demogame and getting the hang of it takes time and effort. I first want to 'learn by example' and therefore feel that more experienced players should lead us. This tends to be the same group of people who switch offices with eachother over time. I don't mind this for the first periods, but I and other new people do want an active part or an office later in the game.

The other side of the medal is that the experienced citizens have kept the game going, have invested a lot more time, thought and effort in designing the setup and the game and I don't like to steal that from them. In a way they've earned their positions. It's just not correct to thank them by not allowing them to play the parts they like.

@eyrie

I don't like this at all. It might actually hurt our ability to perform well in the game, as a completely different strategy may be used each month.

Click to expand...

I do not agree at all with you on this. Aren't there polls, threads and comments from everyone to point out the road to succes? There are enough people here who know how it works and they are given plenty of opportunity to express their points of view. And trust me; when SaaM, Eyrie, CT or DZ or whoever played for a long time, says to choose option "A" and a new citizen like me says to choose option "B" the tendency is to go with the advise of the experienced players. I have to make my points very clear before my point of view is followed.

Furthermore you still will be our "leaders" and most influencial citizens; but you will be less active. Think of it as the Roman Patrician families; they held real power while 2 consuls officially ruled the empire.

Summarising: please gradually make room for new citizens. I don't think it will decrease your fun, but it will certainly increase theirs.

The problem is that this just won't work, participation is far too low to go with one, although I support 2, 3 and 4.

1). A candidate cannot hold the the same office for two consecutive terms.

2). Also that a person cannot hold more than one elected office at once with the exception of the Presidency and the VP.

3). Also that if a person is elected to a Leader position, that person cannot hold any deputy leaderships for his term in office

4). Finally, that holding multiple Deputy positions is prohibited with the exception of the Vice Presidency.

Click to expand...

I am strongly aggainst this. I would like to see Department Leaders and Govenors to be able to Hold Deputy possitons. I would like to see that a Department Leader should be able to be a Deputy of at least one office.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
I have dual feelings on point 1.


@eyrie I do not agree at all with you on this. Aren't there polls, threads and comments from everyone to point out the road to succes? There are enough people here who know how it works and they are given plenty of opportunity to express their points of view. And trust me; when SaaM, Eyrie, CT or DZ or whoever played for a long time, says to choose option "A" and a new citizen like me says to choose option "B" the tendency is to go with the advise of the experienced players. I have to make my points very clear before my point of view is followed.

Click to expand...

As our nation gets larger, it becomes harder and harder for leaders to post polls on everything. Otherwise, the game gets completely bogged down and people start leaving because we spend an entire term on 10 game turns.

Why is that CivGen. Dont you think it is a good idea to have more people involved in the running of the game?

Originally posted by Peri
Why is that CivGen. Dont you think it is a good idea to have more people involved in the running of the game?

Click to expand...

I beleve it is a good Idea to get more people involved in the Demogame, but I dont want to see Leaders not be able to apply for a Deputy possition. If there is anything good with 2-4, I will change my possition. I need to see the Pros and Cons so I can decide to switch.

The theory is that by restricting the holding of offices there will be a greater chance that newbies would be able to hold an elected post. By limiting the offices to one per person then participation is increased at a stroke. I hope this strikes a chord.

Originally posted by Rik Meleet
Aren't there polls, threads and comments from everyone to point out the road to succes? There are enough people here who know how it works and they are given plenty of opportunity to express their points of view. And trust me; when SaaM, Eyrie, CT or DZ or whoever played for a long time, says to choose option "A" and a new citizen like me says to choose option "B" the tendency is to go with the advise of the experienced players. I have to make my points very clear before my point of view is followed.

Click to expand...

It takes some time to get noticed, Rik. And it takes even more to get elected. That said, I still disagree with imposing a one term limit on elected positions. Some people just have what it takes for a certain role in our government, and should be rewarded for it. Also, later on when we have 7-8 governors, we will want to try to keep a person in office that is familiar with their province.

Thank you for including me in your list of notables when it comes to selling a position in our polls, but it may not help your aspirations to know that I have only won one election head-to-head and it was against a player who was gone from the forums for 2-3 months. Heck, last term I got smoked by CivGeneral 35-10 in the Military elections, and then proceeded to outpost him by roughly the same amount in the Citizens Forum.

So in a sense, 800 DemoGame posts later I am still trying to make a name for myself.

I do like proposals 2,3 & 4. It would be an asset to the game to have people like yourself in deputy positions rather than some veteran who has been around too long to appreciate the value of the position. I think that you and Peri have done an exceptional job in your positions, and hope this leads to better prospects in the coming terms. We need more citizens like you two.

However, on point 1 I still say that if you want to be the best you have to beat the best. No term limits!

Looks like some middle ground is needed Here is an alternative suggestion:

Rather than using enforced term limits, the incumbents should be encouraged to consider volunarily stepping aside (by withdrawing their nomination) if a sufficiently strong newcomer is willing to accept the nomination. This serves the purposes of both the experienced people who have a lot invested in the game (by making it their choice whether to give the newbie a chance or not), as well as newcomers who want to participate but face overwhelming odds against being elected (by increasing that chance if the experienced player decides to opt out).

The idea about letting an individual hold only one deputy position should be less controversial than the term limits one. Here is an idea for non-forced implementation of that idea. Two experienced and one inexperienced people run for an office. The 2 old-timers come in 1-2, and the 2nd place finisher also wins or comes in 2nd in a different office. To give the newbie a chance, the 2nd place finisher could voluntarily withdraw post-election, allowing the newbie to become deputy. What if the deputy is needed and the newbie is unreliable, you ask? There could be a means for the courts to restore the person who stepped aside to the deputy position according to the election result.

Does this provide a better way to let newcomers into the process while protecting the rights of the established players?

its not about the name, its about the job they have done in previous/current games.

As for the reform i agree with all points but the first, term limits will only hurt the game in the long run, we must think towards the future.

Well, I tend to agree that point 1 of the proposal is likely to hurt us more than it helps. Belive you me, those who contribute and have an active voice get themselves elected, sometimes it just takes time. It may seem like some people have been here forever, but the vast majority of people who hold positions and influence now were titleless, friendless, newbies at some point. I think with a focus on building strong depudy positions and governors we can introduce people adequately well to the government.

I dislike Point 1. The only position that I can reliably win is Public Defender (though I might have a shot at CJ), and this would exclude me from that role. I like the other three points, however.

I also dislike point 1 - like boots said, some people are only good at one posistion. That would be like me going for military (well, when it's not late middle to early modern. ) when I'm more of a builder.

I'm fine with some kind of term limit but it would be ideal if this was self imposed instead of mandated. I can tell you that I would be more than happy to step down from a race if there is an establishing candidate that I support for the position.

Aren't 2 through 4 redundant? All together they say that a single person can only be in one position.