Vote to overturn the Council Vote

Fellow citizens, Join me in abolishing the undemocratic Council Vote. It is time we voted to stop consecrating the power in the hands of a small elite, but instead give power to an even larger elite.

This may not be a formal poll that follows all our procedure, but I think its important someone set up a vote.

Discussion here is here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=64244

I voted yes to the abolishment of the council vote, as it is completely unnecessary and undemocratic to have only a few people voting on key issues. Depending on the results of this informational poll, I will post constitutional amendment discussion and a poll to formally abolish the council vote.

Originally posted by Hygro
...It is time we voted to stop consecrating the power in the hands of a small elite, but instead give power to an even larger elite...

Click to expand...

Yeah, larger elite.

Yes, the vote should be overturned!

Look! One of the results is in the lead!

NO! NO!

This is not because I am power hungry. It ia because we need people who can vote on URGENT issues, that cannot wait 2-4 days for a vote.

I am not saying that the 5 or so who can council vote have a better opinion, rather you voted us in to decide on issues that had to be decided on in less than 24hrs, and to carry out your orders. If we were to collectively vote on a team policy on what procedure council members will carry out in a matter of national emergency, that would be much better.

Though I find these council votes that are for merely appointing Ambassadors useless.

any of us can vote on urgent issues. Who cares who votes on urgent issues. Why should it matter? If it's a national emergency the whoever is playing the game should make the smartest decision. Or alternatively set up a timed poll. I see no reason why thats a bad thing. Its not like a host of a thousand ignorant lurkers will spawn out of nowhere and vote the poor decision: instead it will be the very same people who post regulary (gov't officials or not) who will vote.

Like I said, either way its letting the elite have the vote. It's just a matter of how many elites in which we give power.

I would be happy to abolish council votes IF we come up with some kind of emergency policy, eg:
If war declared on us suddenly, then...
If urgent treatly offered suddenly then...
If ally in grave danger and needs immediate assistance then...

...we will set a timed poll, in which the ones who are here and see it time will vote.:

[edit] Post 300! woohoo!:jump: [dance] [dance][/edit]

Ive seen the evolution of democracy games from the very start ,and i can tell you that i very much think council votes are nessecary ,for the reason's that GB said ,and it is not correct that just anybody could decide on urgent issue's ,that is a matter for the leader's that are democraticly elected.

Having a way to democratic system where the people do decide on just everything is way to bureaucratic and would lead to a serious mess.There is a need for a small amount of people who have extensive information on hte game so that decission's can be taken efficiantly.Many regular poster's have a far more limited view on the game ,so it's harder for them to decide what should happen.

Bisides the hughe amount of extra work that it creates ,i know from expierence that the people are generally not that interrested in all seperate issue's.In previous demo games ,people could vote for everything ,wich resulted in a hughe amount of poll's that cluttered the forum and where a bore for leaders to crete ,this while many of these poll's didn't actually got votes just by the mere fact that either people were not interrested ,or there was way to much to vote on.

One final issue is the power of the elected leader's itself.if you take away such votes and hand most decision's to the people ,the leader's will feel powerless this while they carry out most of the work around here.In the long term ,it will lead to less interest in leader position's to the point that there won't be presidential candidate's.

What you really should do is look at wich official makes most decision's that are in line with youre idea's ,and then vote for that person in the next ellection's ,just like it is in real life.
If you want more power ,then get yourself elected.

However ,while i tottaly back up council votes for urgent decission's ,i realy don't understand neither why they are used to elect ambassador's ,as in my oppinion the people should elect ambassador's.

I don't think Council votes should be abolished, though I agree that everyone should vote for the ambassador. I just used the Council votes, because that's the only way to get you and others the position of ambassador. All officials (at non-election times) are put through Council votes. I think that is more worthy of discussion than abolishing Council votes.

I think ANY council vote for an election, so as DZ's vote to become vice president, is wrong.

Our council votes have been almost (or maybe filly) exclusive for filling official positions.

Originally posted by Hygro
I think ANY council vote for an election, so as DZ's vote to become vice president, is wrong.

Our council votes have been almost (or maybe filly) exclusive for filling official positions.

Click to expand...

Maybe I didn't hint that well enough. I agree that no position should be appointed like that, but the Council Vote can be used for other means.

Under the present Constitution, the Council members vote on two things only. These are:

1. They approve appointments of new leaders when they are chosen mid-term due to a vacancy in that office.
2. They ratify treaties involving relations with foreign nations, but this ratification is subject to a poll of the people to approve it.

First of all, confirmation of appointments of new leaders should certainly be chosen by the citizens. It would take about the same amount of time to confirm a new leader with a citizen poll and it would be far more democratic. In the recent GWT Ambassador council vote, three people voted and that decided the ambassador. Though I support DoF in this position I feel that the process must be made more democratic than that. Regular posters' more limited view of the game would not matter in this instance, as they elect them democratically in ordinary elections anyway. It would also not take any power from the appropriate leader; they would still be able to appoint the new official, but it would be subject to a public confirmation poll rather than a council vote. I see no reason we should make the confirmation of leaders during mid-term up only to the Councl, instead of the people as a democracy should function.

On the second point, the Council vote must be approved by the populace after a vote for ratification. Therefore, the Council vote actually SLOWS DOWN the process; its abolishment could mean that we make those decisions regarding treaties 1-2 days faster than we currently do. Of course, I believe that in an issue that can afford to wait that long should be approved faster and more democratically. In addition, in practice council votes are not necessarily much faster than a citizen poll.

@GBM - I recognize the need for urgency in extreme situations. Therefore, I support the system whereby the President can sign a treaty with the Chief Justice's approval if it is an extremely urgent situation.

@DoF - Abolishing the Council votes would not create a mess; they don't do that much anyway in the first place. In addition, I approve of the right of individual leaders to make decisions (especially turn instructions) without polling them, unless they are significant issues in which the people should have a say. Also, the DP must make several decisions each chat without polling them and I agree that it would be a big mess to have the people voting on every minor decision. However, I don't feel the council should be involved in them (it would be a huge mess that way too).

The primary function of the council vote is to approve new officials to the council, as well as ambassadors and the Justice. Their use in treaty ratification is in addition to a poll of the Congress.

As an effective measure of getting people into positions of power, the vote of the council is very necessary. A full, proper poll of the populace takes at least 2 days, more if over a weekend. At the pace we're expected to play this game, we need vacancies filled, and fast. Waiting for the usual 11 respondants over two days is not fast enough. The (supposedly) six most active people in game, the Executive Council, can get this done in a matter of hours.

We don't folly when we elect officials. It can be assumed that they know what they are doing. Giving them just a bit more power to get things moving quickly is justifiable.

The Council can get it done in a matter of hours, but they usually take over a day, and they are often less active than some of the other users. I have to this point never seen a situation for filling vacancies so urgent that we couldn't wait 24-36 hours more and make it far more democratic, nor do I consider it possible with our current level of participation (you can always find someone to play the save, for instance, and the other leaders don't often provide official instructions anyway). If the vote is held over the weekend, it could still remain the usual 48 hour period as forum activity does not make a drastic decrease and usually all or most of the active participants check in at least once during the course of the weekend. As far as the 11 respondants, where did that come from? We have no quorum except for constitutional amendments. On your last point, does it not make more sense to give this power to approve officials to the people rather than a small group of representatives of the people? After all, the people elect the leaders in the regular elections, so it should stand to reason that they should at least have approval power over officials appointed in mid-term. It would only take 24 to maybe 36 hours longer. This is a game of democracy, and I feel that it should be as direct a democracy as is reasonably possible.

I nominate bootstoots for Public Defender

I'll second

Anyway, power to the people, down with the council vote!

The reason why I have so often taken ages to vote in council votes, is because I have been given no reason to choose one option over the other. I think that we should allow public discussion in the council votes threads, then let the executive decide based on the people's input.

But please take note - the council votes are here to stay, but I would prefer them be a little more open. Unless the appointment to office is urgent, like in quickly replacing a President, we should avoid it.

But seriously, do you expect to have a fair presidential vote if the poll only lasts for 24hrs? It aint gonna happen, no matter how much you think it will. However an urgent council vote would most probably be passed in less than 20 hrs, if it is deemed important (and not appointing an ambassador). It would also fairly reasonably be the will of the people. I mean, you didn't vote us in because you knew we ignore you and dont really care for the game. Or did you?

Originally posted by Gingerbread Man

But please take note - the council votes are here to stay, but I would prefer them be a little more open. Unless the appointment to office is urgent, like in quickly replacing a President, we should avoid it.

Click to expand...

What makes you think they are here to stay? And I don't see how we could word an amendment so that the council could only vote if the appointment was urgent. Actually, I don't see how it could be that urgent in any case. If the President leaves, even during a time of crisis, other people could play the save for him, an example being right now, where Octavian cannot play the game but other people are doing it in his place. And perhaps most importantly, the Council can't vote on a new President anyway, as the Vice President immediately becomes President if the other President leaves. If there is no President, a mid-term election must be held, like we did earlier this term. And I don't see how any other office could become so urgent that we couldn't wait another 24 hours to select them.

But seriously, do you expect to have a fair presidential vote if the poll only lasts for 24hrs? It aint gonna happen, no matter how much you think it will. However an urgent council vote would most probably be passed in less than 20 hrs, if it is deemed important (and not appointing an ambassador). It would also fairly reasonably be the will of the people. I mean, you didn't vote us in because you knew we ignore you and dont really care for the game. Or did you?

Click to expand...

I have given the 24-hour "quick poll" some thought and decided that all polls, especially for something this important, must last at least 48 hours to be a fair poll. However, there are no council votes that could possibly be held under our current constitution that are so urgent that we cannot wait another 24-36 hours for all the people to make a decision, and I challenge proponents of the council vote to disprove that statement. On your last point, of course we didn't elect the leaders so that they would ignore us, we just want to be represented with a voice and a vote in all major decisions.

Boots, you have the point.

@DoF: Playing without a council vote may cause trouble in the original DG, but here there are so few participants, it wouldn't matter.