DG4 Discussion - Election Process

ravensfire · Dec 17, 2003

How should our election process work?

A brief discussion was started about this in the CoL - Judiciary thread. Rather than clog that up, we should discuss them in this thread. We need to define the timeframe for elections; nomination, debates, etc; the role of the Election Office; what book to put the Election process in; and specifics on the various races.

Please, as much as possible, be specific.

-- Ravensfire

Donovan Zoi · Dec 17, 2003

I was actually planning on opening a CoS thread for this, but you are certainly right to get this started now.

I will try to drum up something tonite, but my proposal will be based on:

1. Traditional schedule, with minor change in noms for the month of December(open on 22nd instead of 24th).

2. Debates will open in same thread as nomination process, although noms will be allowed to continue until 29th of month.

3. Moderators now have ability to screen elections for fraud, aka unregistered citizens or double log-ins(DLs). We need to figure out how we will incorporate this into the process.

4. Longer terms for the Judiciary? Discuss.

That's all I can think of at this time. When I get a chance to look at the current law, I can get more specific.

Cyc · Dec 17, 2003

All looks good except for the longer Terms for the Judiciary. Alonger nomination period could not possibly hurt in a situation such as this. Debates local to their nomination thread is an idea we should try. Mods using the Big Stick overseeing the elections is a good idea too. But I see no reason to lengthen the Judiciary Terms.

Donovan Zoi · Dec 17, 2003

Hence the question mark.

I just want to get public opinion on it before I even propose it.

So far, it doesn't look too good. :lol:

Rik Meleet · Dec 17, 2003

1 & 2: Considering February (in 2004 it's 29 days long), move the days for nomination and election in that month 1 day earlier.

I don't see why Judiciary should get longer terms.

I do think that while the Judiciary is still working on a case which will last longer than term in which it was started, the "old" Judiciary has to continue to work on those specific cases. They make a proposal to the "new" Judiciary (when the work needed has been done) to follow there judgement/opinion/conclusion. The "new" Judiciary is obliged to accept and act upon the advice of the "old" Judiciary.

This prevents 'criminals' to escape judgement due to calendars.

GenMarshall · Dec 17, 2003

I dont beleve that we should have the Judicary run loger terms. This would defenatly defeats the purpouse of a monthly election. I beleve the Judicary should still be on a monthly elections. The newly elected Judicary members can take care of the previous term's judgement.

ravensfire · Dec 17, 2003

An easier system to follow, although it would require more effort for the Election office, would be to base everything as X days before the end of the month. Then, it doesn't matter what month it is, we will always have the same amount of time. The Election Office would then be responsible for determining and posting the relevant dates.

I'm starting to not like the idea of nomination threads being the debate threads though. Imagine a good, strong debate, then add someone posting a nomination or acceptance in the middle of it. There is a chance that the nomination or acceptance could be missed in all of the excitement. It would greatly simplify things to use different threads.

I would like to see all debates limited to the forums - there should be no advantage (real or perceived) given to those able to participate in a chat debate.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire · Dec 17, 2003

For the offices, I have a mostly traditional list.

-- President
-- Minister of Internal Affairs
-- Minister of Defense
-- Minister of Foreign Affairs
-- Minister of Trade and Technology
-- Chief Justice

For the other offices (2 Associate Justices, Provincial Governors), I have a new idea - cumulative voting. For each office (Justice and Governor), each citizen has one vote for each available position. They may place those votes as they wish, including voting all of their votes for the same person.

All votes are then totaled, with the candidates with the most votes getting elected.

To do this in our system, we create one poll for each position, listing each candidate. You then vote once in each poll. For the Justices, the top two candidates become the Associate Justices. For the Governors, the top x candidates, where x is the number of provinces, is elected. In order of their vote totals, they choose their province.

For those that are wondering why the Chief Justice is seperate - the demands of that position are much greater than the Associate Justice, and should be it own campaign.

-- Ravensfire

ravensfire · Dec 17, 2003

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I dont beleve that we should have the Judicary run loger terms. This would defenatly defeats the purpouse of a monthly election. I beleve the Judicary should still be on a monthly elections. The newly elected Judicary members can take care of the previous term's judgement.

I agree with CG about the monthly terms, but not on the grounds of "tradition". The truly good Justices will be re-elected, probably as long as they want. A poor Justice, who struggles with handling the demands of the position, will remain in office for only a month.

The other matter does not belong here, but in the CoL thread on the Judiciary.

-- Ravensfire

Donovan Zoi · Dec 17, 2003

For the other offices (2 Associate Justices, Provincial Governors), I have a new idea - cumulative voting. For each office (Justice and Governor), each citizen has one vote for each available position. They may place those votes as they wish, including voting all of their votes for the same person.

All votes are then totaled, with the candidates with the most votes getting elected.

To do this in our system, we create one poll for each position, listing each candidate. You then vote once in each poll. For the Justices, the top two candidates become the Associate Justices. For the Governors, the top x candidates, where x is the number of provinces, is elected. In order of their vote totals, they choose their province.

I actually had the exact same thoughts about elections for Associate Justices. And with regards to Governors, I feel that this would only be acceptable until we are able to define our provinces.

In other words, should we decide that we are electing three governors-at-large at the outset, then those positions can be filled using your proposed method. However, once there are enough cities to make three provinces, elections for those provinces should be polled separately during the next election cycle.

I'm starting to not like the idea of nomination threads being the debate threads though. Imagine a good, strong debate, then add someone posting a nomination or acceptance in the middle of it. There is a chance that the nomination or acceptance could be missed in all of the excitement. It would greatly simplify things to use different threads.

Perhaps to gain new perspective, we should call the entire thread the Campaign thread. This would be a place where the whole process unfolds in the same arena in chronological order. No jumping back and forth to different threads for the voters, and it will encourage prospective candidates to declare early. Even so, as far as a late acceptance being missed, I believe that there is a better chance of it being missed if it sat in a separate Noms thread after the "excitement" had already moved to the Debate thread.

One thread. One big party. On to the elections.

DaveShack · Dec 19, 2003

Nominations and debates in the same thread makes for fewer places to go looking for information. In fact, why not have the acceptance post also contain a platform statement? That way, even if there are no questions asked we'll have some idea of where candidates stand.

Elections should be based on end of month minus a delta. It doesn't seem out of line to ask the election office to do a little math...

If we wanted to have a top n vote getters, then we should allow a multi-choice poll.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

A detailed proposal:

PLEASE NOTE: Both CoL and CoS sections are included

Code:

Elections (CoL section)

I.  Elections shall be supervised by the Election Office under guidance 
    from the Judiciary.
  A.  At the conclusion of an election cycle, the Election Office shall:
    1.  Determine and post the results of the election in a thread in the 
        main forum.
    2.  Determine and post the dates of the next election cycle in the  
        first post of the Election Office.
  
II.  For the purposes of this clause, all times shall be expressed in GMT.

III.  The following offices shall have one calendar month terms, beginning 
      on the first day of that month
  A.  President
  B.  Minister of Internal Affairs
  C.  Minister of Defense
  D.  Minister of Foreign Affairs
  E.  Minister of Trade and Technology
  F.  Chief Justice
  G.  2 Associate Justice
  H.  1 Provincial Governor per Province
  I.  At-Large Govenors, if needed
  
IV.  Elections shall be conducted according to the following scheduled:
  A.  Nominations shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run 
      until the election polls are posted.
  B.  Debates shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run until 
      the election polls close.
  C.  Election polls shall start 4 days before the end of the month and run 
      for 3 days.
  
V.  The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner 
    of that election.
  A.  Should more than one citizen tie with the highest totals, a run-off 
      election lasting 2 days shall be immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.
  

Elections (CoS section)

I.  Nominations
  A.  Nomination threads shall be created in the Citizen sub-forum.
  B.  Any citizen may nominate any other citizen, including themself, for any 
      office.
  C.  To be listed in the Election poll, a Citizen must post that they have 
      accepted a nomination.
    1.  A self-nomination is considered to be automatically accepted.
  D.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than 3 nominations in any 
      election cycle.
    1.  Each accepted nomination must be in a different branch of Government.
  E.  The Election Office shall create a Nomination Tracking thread in the  
      Citizen sub-forum summarizing all nominations and their status.
    
II.  Debates
  A.  Debate threads shall be created in the Citizen sub-forum.
  B.  A template for each position shall be posted in the first post 
      requesting general information from each candidate.
  C.  Any citizen may post a question or statement in this thread.
  D.  No candidate shall be forced to respond to a question.
  
III.  Polling
  A.  Polling threads shall be created in the main forum.
  B.  Only accepted nominations shall be listed in the Election poll.
  C.  The poll shall list the the nominees and abstain.
  D.  Each office shall have its own poll.
    1.  Associate Justice exceptions:
      i.  There shall be only 1 poll for the Associate Justice office.
      ii.  The top two finishers shall be deemed winners of the election.
      iii.  Should a tie exist for the second office, only those nominees 
            tied for that position shall be listed in the run-off.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

CoL

Sorry, I don't agree with your debates section at all. And in the polling section, all Justices should be in the same poll. (If they're not then the second and third place for the Chief Justice can't accept a nomination for an Associate Justice.) We would waste a candidate or three that way.

The CoL part looks passable.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

Originally posted by Cyc
CoL

Sorry, I don't agree with your debates section at all. And in the polling section, all Justices should be in the same poll. (If they're not then the second and third place for the Chief Justice can't accept a nomination for an Associate Justice.) We would waste a candidate or three that way.

The CoL part looks passable.

What would you change about the debate section?

Understand about the Justices section - I was trying to avoid putting all three into one poll though. I think we would end up with a bit of a mess with three candidates from one poll.

I'm not sure about multi-choice polling on that either. I don't like the idea of that style for an election. I wouldn't mind having three polls that list all candidates though - cumulative voting.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

In the debates section, the new proposal for including debates in the nomination thread should be tried. That way, we don't have to go all over the place to find out which candidates are to lazy to participate in the debates. It's right there in the nomination thread. Citizens can ask their questions right there. Point blank. If the Candidates don't answer, it's clear they don't want to participate, making for a bad candidate.

For the Justices, I agree with having no multiple choice polls. FOR ANY ELECTED OFFICE! But having 2 or 3 polls for the Justices is a bad idea as you'll have to split the candidates or duplicate your vote. Just put all in one and be done with it. The topm vote getter is CJ and 2nd/3rd places are associate Justices.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

Originally posted by Cyc
In the debates section, the new proposal for including debates in the nomination thread should be tried. That way, we don't have to go all over the place to find out which candidates are to lazy to participate in the debates. It's right there in the nomination thread. Citizens can ask their questions right there. Point blank. If the Candidates don't answer, it's clear they don't want to participate, making for a bad candidate.

I see your point here. I'm just concerned that a nomination might get missed in the middle of a busy debate. Imagine someone posting a nomination in the middle of our current discussion in the other thread!

For the Justices, I agree with having no multiple choice polls. FOR ANY ELECTED OFFICE! But having 2 or 3 polls for the Justices is a bad idea as you'll have to split the candidates or duplicate your vote. Just put all in one and be done with it. The topm vote getter is CJ and 2nd/3rd places are associate Justices.

Click to expand...

Well, this is in the CoS, so if we decide the process doesn't work right, we can change it easily.

Okay, new proposal then:

Code:

Elections (CoL section)

I.  Elections shall be supervised by the Election Office under guidance 
    from the Judiciary.
  A.  At the conclusion of an election cycle, the Election Office shall:
    1.  Determine and post the results of the election in a thread in the 
        main forum.
    2.  Determine and post the dates of the next election cycle in the  
        first post of the Election Office.
  
II.  For the purposes of this clause, all times shall be expressed in GMT.

III.  The following offices shall have one calendar month terms, beginning 
      on the first day of that month
  A.  President
  B.  Minister of Internal Affairs
  C.  Minister of Defense
  D.  Minister of Foreign Affairs
  E.  Minister of Trade and Technology
  F.  Chief Justice
  G.  2 Associate Justice
  H.  1 Provincial Governor per Province
  I.  At-Large Govenors, if needed
  
IV.  Elections shall be conducted according to the following scheduled:
  A.  Nominations shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run 
      until the election polls are posted.
  B.  Debates shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run until 
      the election polls close.
  C.  Election polls shall start 4 days before the end of the month and run 
      for 3 days.
  
V.  The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner 
    of that election.
  A.  Should more than one citizen tie with the highest totals, a run-off 
      election lasting 2 days shall be immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.
  

Elections (CoS section)

I.  Nominations
  A.  Nomination threads shall be created in the Citizen sub-forum.
  B.  Any citizen may nominate any other citizen, including themself, for any 
      office.
  C.  To be listed in the Election poll, a Citizen must post that they have 
      accepted a nomination.
    1.  A self-nomination is considered to be automatically accepted.
  D.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than 3 nominations in any 
      election cycle.
    1.  Each accepted nomination must be in a different branch of Government.
  E.  The Election Office shall create a Nomination Tracking thread in the  
      Citizen sub-forum summarizing all nominations and their status.
    
II.  Debates
  A.  Debates shall be within the Nomination thread.
  B.  Any citizen may post a question or statement in this thread.
  C.  No candidate shall be forced to respond to a question.
  D.  The Election Office shall maintain a list of the asked questions
        and periodically repost them.
  
III.  Polling
  A.  Polling threads shall be created in the main forum.
  B.  Only accepted nominations shall be listed in the Election poll.
  C.  The poll shall list the the nominees and abstain.
  D.  Each office shall have its own poll.
    1.  Judiciary exceptions:
      i.  There shall be only 1 poll for the Judiciary branch.
      ii.  The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
      iii.  The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate Justices.
      iv.  Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that 
            position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
            the Chief Justice.
      v.  Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees 
            tied for that position shall be listed in the run-off.

How does that look? Note the new stuff in debate and polling thread.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

It looks good, Ravensfire. But I don't see the need for CoS, II.D. It would just seem to cause problems with the debate structure and is uneeded. If a candidate does see the questions, then I'm sure the citizens will ask them to respond where they are lacking.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

Originally posted by Cyc
It looks good, Ravensfire. But I don't see the need for CoS, II.D. It would just seem to cause problems with the debate structure and is uneeded. If a candidate does see the questions, then I'm sure the citizens will ask them to respond where they are lacking.

It's mostly to make sure that all candidates are reminded about all questions. Although many of our debates are boring, I can see a few getting exciting and long. It is entirely possible for a question to get missed.

It's also a good way to quietly prod candidates to answer the all of the questions. No ignoring one and hoping it goes away! I saw that happen a few times in DG3.

-- Ravensfire

Cyc · Dec 22, 2003

As long as it doesn't preclude the citizens asking for a candidates answer, then it's fine.

ravensfire · Dec 22, 2003

Originally posted by Cyc
As long as it doesn't preclude the citizens asking for a candidates answer, then it's fine.

Oh, no. Never! I have a few questions for some positions that I will absolutely annoy the candidates until they do answer! Maybe the infamous "until proven guilty vs unless proven guilty" ....

Freedom of speech - I can ask you to answer the question all I want. You don't have to (same freedom), but I can still bug you about it.

-- Ravensfire

DG4 Discussion - Election Process

Member of the Opposition

The Return

Looking for the door...

The Return

Top predator

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Member of the Opposition

Member of the Opposition

Member of the Opposition

The Return

Inventor

Member of the Opposition

Looking for the door...

Member of the Opposition

Looking for the door...

Member of the Opposition

Looking for the door...

Member of the Opposition

Looking for the door...

Member of the Opposition

Similar threads