Congress: CoS J.1.d - Accepting Nominations

zorven · Feb 12, 2004

Our Judiciary has struck down CoS J.1.d:

The Old Code

Code:

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.
    2.  The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
        citizens that have exceeded the limit.
    3.  Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to 
        the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the 
        earier acceptances as having priority over the later 
        in creating the election ballots.

I think we should fix this before the next election, if possible. There has been discussions in other threads about limiting citizens to running in only one election. I believe this would avoid the problem identified by the Judiciary that was in the prior code. Therefore, below is a proposal for a new CoS J.1.d. Lets discuss our options.

Proposal

Code:

d.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one 
      nomination in any election cycle.
    1.  The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
        citizens that have exceeded the limit.
    2.  Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to 
        the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the 
        earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance  
        when creating the election ballots.

edit: I edited section 2 in the proposal to make more sense. Prior to my edit it was the same as the old code.

ravensfire · Feb 12, 2004

Absolutely perfect!

-- Ravensfire

Chieftess · Feb 12, 2004

The problem I have with that is in the late game when we have many provinces, which means many governors. We're asking for 15+ posistions, and there might not be enough people left then. That's mostly because the game is usually over and people are waiting for the next game.

ravensfire · Feb 16, 2004

Does anyone have anything further on this idea? What do you think? Do you like this? Not like it? Why?

From the term 2 elections, 6 citizens and 6 elections would have been affected by this proposal.

-- Ravensfire

Octavian X · Feb 16, 2004

My biggest concern is that we will have the opposite of situation of term 2 - no elections whatsoever. My guess is that those who run will not want to take any chances on any positions they might lose, since they'd only have one shot. My prediction is that we'll end up with all too many positions being decided without contest, as the number of candidates per position will be reduced greatly.

My first proposed solution would involve a little bit of common sense, but as that has been more or less found unconstitutional, I move to my second proposal.

I know I've brought this up before, but why not simply start the entire electroal process a day earlier, closing out the elections on the second to the last day of the month? This gives candidates a day between the end of elections and the start of a new term to get things figured out.
If someone wins multiple positions, he'd have that extra day to decide which one he wants. When that candidate has chosen one over the other, the next highest vote-getter would get the other office.

This remedies the problem of a person holding multiple offices during a term, without constricting a person to running to just one office.

GenMarshall · Feb 16, 2004

Originally posted by Octavian X
My biggest concern is that we will have the opposite of situation of term 2 - no elections whatsoever. My guess is that those who run will not want to take any chances on any positions they might lose, since they'd only have one shot. My prediction is that we'll end up with all too many positions being decided without contest, as the number of candidates per position will be reduced greatly.

I am against the new proposal. Octavian X has practicly explained the reason why.

ravensfire · Feb 16, 2004

As I've not seen anyone consider this option, allow me to post a seperate proposal for your consideration. It is a solution to the problem from a slightly different point of view.

CoL F.5.b Should a citizen be determined to have won more elected positions than legally allowed in the current election cycle, that citizen shall state which office(s) they intend to accept.
1. For all offices so declined, the citizen receiving the next-highest number of votes and who was not the winner of another elected position in the current election cycle, is then considered the winner of that election.

-- Ravensfire

Bootstoots · Feb 16, 2004

I fully agree with that, and probably would have posted a similar proposal if you hadn't posted it.

It would be a much better idea to allow citizens to run in multiple elections and define what should happen in the event of declines than to restrict them to running for one position, which would work well now but would cause all sorts of problems during later terms when we have 10+ provinces and participation will have dropped to low levels.

ravensfire · Feb 16, 2004

Originally posted by Bootstoots
which would work well now but would cause all sorts of problems during later terms when we have 10+ provinces and participation will have dropped to low levels.

Actually, that situation has no significant impact to this discussion.

Without continual influx of new players, we will have trouble in the later stages. Most especially, we need to have more players NOW that are active in the game. In spite of his somewhat abrasive nature at times, tao is precisely the type of citizen we need - knowlegdable and willing to work.

Regardless of our election system, if we have 10+ provinces, we're going to have trouble with certain positions.

I am a person who really likes zorven's idea of one person, one election. I'm going to hammer every candidate in the next election that runs in multiple races with a few, simple questions.

1. If you are elected to all races you have entered, will you accept or decline this office?
2. If you choose to accept this office over the others, why are you diverting your attention by running in other offices?
3. If you choose to decline this office, explain why I, as a citizen, should bother to vote for you when you plan on discarding that vote and view this election as secondary?

By limiting citizens to one, and only one race, I feel that those running in that election truly desire that position, and are willing to put some thought and effort prior to the election - campaigning essentially. We will have a broader, more diverse set of candidates. With the races being more open, more new citizens will be willing to run for office. They may not be elected the first time out, but they will start to gain a sense of ownership, of responsibility for that office.

Look at Sarevok - he's really taking the Defense Minister to heart - I haven't seen that much emotion out of that position in a while. While sometimes abrasive, that's the mark of a citizen that has a vision, that has goals for their office. Fanatica, and the DG, needs more people like that.

For me, cascading is a cop-out. It allows people to say "Well, I'll try for this position, but I'll this other one as a fall-back" Bah - get off your duff and WORK for that first office. We had a rather lack-luster election cycle. Bring back some of the races from DG2 and DG3 - those were great reads!

One citizen. One vote. One election.

-- Ravensfire

DaveShack · Feb 16, 2004

I am against limiting the number of offices a candidate can run for. The proposal as written guarantees that we will either have mostly uncontested elections, or up to 50% of our most involved players will end up out of office each term.

Lance · Feb 16, 2004

I must say that I would go for the original proposal with only one nomination for one citizen. Reasons can pretty much be found from Ravensfire's latest reply.

In coming elections, I think I will give my vote to a candidate who is running for just that one position.

ravensfire · Feb 16, 2004

Originally posted by DaveShack
I am against limiting the number of offices a candidate can run for. The proposal as written guarantees that we will either have mostly uncontested elections, or up to 50% of our most involved players will end up out of office each term.

Ahah! Unfounded statistics!

Let's use the most recent election. Bad statistics, admittedly, with a sample size of one - but we are using recent, real data. Assuming that each citizen accepts the first post listed, and withdraws from all other elections, here's what the elections look like:

President
zorven
Rik Meleet

Minister of Domestic Affairs
DaveShack

Minister of Defense
Sarevok
Chieftess
CivGeneral

Minister of Foreign Affairs
Bootstoots
Furiey
Fier Canadien

Minister of Trade and Technology
Octavian X

Governor of Berry Province
Plexus
Vander

Governor At-Large (elect two)
Donovan Zoi
Will_518
donsig
Bacon King
Strider

Judicial election
ravensfire

The only election with a significant change is the Judiciary. I have no doubt whatsoever that citizens would have stepped up, including new citizens to increase the candidates to that office.

More than once citizens have declined nominations because there are several citizens in the race already. Many times, at least one of those citizens is in multiple races.

One citizen. Once vote. Once election.

-- Ravensfire

GenMarshall · Feb 16, 2004

If we limit the number on the offices a citizen can run for to 1 would result in many people losing a possibility to gain a office. I am against this "One citizen. Once vote. Once election." since It would severly limit a person to have a backup office if they do lose an office that they so desire.
I beleve that we should not add a restriction to the number of office a citizen can run for. I beleve that the restriction number should be a absolute minumum of 2.

CivGeneral

zorven · Feb 16, 2004

Originally posted by ravensfire
As I've not seen anyone consider this option, allow me to post a seperate proposal for your consideration. It is a solution to the problem from a slightly different point of view.

CoL F.5.b Should a citizen be determined to have won more elected positions than legally allowed in the current election cycle, that citizen shall state which office(s) they intend to accept.
1. For all offices so declined, the citizen receiving the next-highest number of votes and who was not the winner of another elected position in the current election cycle, is then considered the winner of that election.

-- Ravensfire

This is also an excellent proposal to address our problem. I would like to start a poll to see which of these 2 alternatives the citizens prefer. Then we can have one final look at the winner and then poll that for passage into law.

Are there any more proposals before we poll this?

Sarevok · Feb 16, 2004

I agree

Cyc · Feb 17, 2004

I think we need a lot more discussion here. With zorven's proposal, we eliminate a problem that was identified in Term 1. This problem was brought up again in this Term and the idea in zorven's proposal received strong support by the people who posted. I believe we should re-examine this idea to see if it is in deed what we want, or if it will contain the benefits it promises to.

The add on proposal by ravensfire really does nothing more than pass over the problem by writing legislation that states "we will do it the traditional way of running for multiple Offices, and then declining the ones that we don't want". Is this going to solve the problem that we have identified? I think not. It's just going to make some people feel better as we push the problem forward.

Each time I've run for any Office, I've only run for one a Term. It has proven successful for me. I believe it shows commitment. Choose what you want to do and go for it. You don't need to run for 6 elections, just in case you lose 5. Same for three elections, or 2 for that matter. But that's just my personal opinion.

We should discuss this and work out the particulars to see if there are any pitfalls or hidden benefits. We shouldn't just rush off to the polls to get some more personal opinions.

Peri · Feb 17, 2004

Originally posted by CivGeneral
If we limit the number on the offices a citizen can run for to 1 would result in many people losing a possibility to gain a office. I am against this "One citizen. Once vote. Once election." since It would severly limit a person to have a backup office if they do lose an office that they so desire.
I beleve that we should not add a restriction to the number of office a citizen can run for. I beleve that the restriction number should be a absolute minumum of 2.

CivGeneral

That is a fascinating opinion CG. In fact it is the comprehensive reason for why we should support Zorven's proposal.
You are saying that there are some citizens who are completely obesssed and driven to hold some sort of public office. They are not bothered with which one as long as they can claim to be in charge of something. These people dont want to serve the demogame and Fanatica but want to serve their own personal interests.

Under Zorven's proposal more new and inexperienced citizens will be encouraged to stand because the ballot wont be full of the same old names. Also we will see more candidates who genuinely want the office and to serve Fanatica rather than glory hounds.
Also the election contests will be more keenly fought since this will be the one and only chance to get elected. This will make the elections a real contest.

Support This Proposal

ravensfire · Feb 19, 2004

With the next term elections approaching quickly, I propose that we try an experiment, and adopt the following legislation:

Code:

CoS Section J.1.
d.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one 
      nomination in any election cycle.
    1.  The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
        citizens that have exceeded the limit.
    2.  Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to 
        the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the 
        earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance  
        when creating the election ballots.
    3.  Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards, and all subsections
         therein, shall be invalidated upon completion of the 
         Term 3 Election Cycle.

For this upcoming term, we try the 1 election per citizen limit. There is an automatic sunset clause, requiring us to revisit the issue. We will, however, have some data about how the process works.

Please, post if you do, or do not like this idea. Let's try something new here!

One citizen, one vote, one election.

-- Ravensfire

Octavian X · Feb 19, 2004

As I much as I disagree with this legislation, I don't see the harm in a little experiment. My predicitons may prove false - we shall see.

DaveShack · Feb 19, 2004

As I noted in the judiciary thread, without the standard which was "struck down" we have no limit on the number of nominations which can be accepted, and no way to solve the problem of a candidate winning more than one election.

I must therefore reluctantly support an attempt to get the new one nomination proposal with a sunset clause ratified before nominations open for term 3. :hammer:

Congress: CoS J.1.d - Accepting Nominations

12,000 Suns

Member of the Opposition

Moderator

Member of the Opposition

is not a pipe.

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Member of the Opposition

Deity

Member of the Opposition

Inventor

Chieftain

Member of the Opposition

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

12,000 Suns

Civ3 Scenario Creator

Looking for the door...

Vote early and vote often

Member of the Opposition

is not a pipe.

Inventor

Similar threads