Any Interest In A Civ 5 BNW DemoGame?
- Thread starter Methos
- Start date
Nargluj
Chieftain
I could be interested in it. Haven't played a demo. game before but I hope that's not much of a problem.
Atlas627
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,930
Interest for the G&K game is already questionable, not just here but on the other teams. If you are going to make a BNW one, I recommend you ask the G&K members to participate, and also ask if they mind splitting the community (I doubt many new members will join the G&K one if there is a BNW one, for example)
Note, I'm not talking about something similar to an ISDG, but simply a solo Democracy Game that is only played here at CFC. Very similar to what we did in both Civ 3 and Civ 4. That is if I'm understanding you correctly.
That's not a problem at all.
Basically the civ game is played as if we are citizens of our empire. Every month we have elections for the ruler of the empire, mayors of each city, leader of the army, science, or any other position the players feel that we may need. Heck, we've even had religious or political parties spring up to argue directions they believe the empire should go.
Some players role-play and others just play as themselves. It's a lot of fun.
Nargluj
Chieftain
Does sound like a lot of fun. =)
thecommonnate
Theocrat
I could also be interested in that. Anyone seen my flare?
ekat2468
Warlord
I would also be quite interested in doing that
Atlas627
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2011
- Messages
- 2,930
Oh I see. You want to play a singleplayer game, as a team. Sorry about the confusion.
Nargluj
Chieftain
I don't know. Maybe a bit lacking in participants?
Melda
Wannabe Psephologist
Hello. I created an account solely because of this thread. 
I love Civ and find the idea of demogames intriguing but have never been around when one was actively running.
I have some ideas about it I'd like to share if anyone is interested. Is there somewhere these ideas can be discussed?
I love Civ and find the idea of demogames intriguing but have never been around when one was actively running.
I have some ideas about it I'd like to share if anyone is interested. Is there somewhere these ideas can be discussed?
Nargluj
Chieftain
Hello. I created an account solely because of this thread.
I love Civ and find the idea of demogames intriguing but have never been around when one was actively running.
I have some ideas about it I'd like to share if anyone is interested. Is there somewhere these ideas can be discussed?
Welcome to Civfanatics forums.
Welcome to CFC! 
Well then, let's get started. The first thing to do is start the planning phase. I assume we want to work with the initial rules/constitution that was used in the previous Civ 4 game? The map, civ, and difficulty shouldn't be high on the priority list just yet. Though the question arises if we do want the map to be hand made, then that is something we should decide early on. My worry is if the map is hand made, then it could take quite a bit of time getting it crafted.
Any other thoughts on the planning phase?
Well then, let's get started. The first thing to do is start the planning phase. I assume we want to work with the initial rules/constitution that was used in the previous Civ 4 game? The map, civ, and difficulty shouldn't be high on the priority list just yet. Though the question arises if we do want the map to be hand made, then that is something we should decide early on. My worry is if the map is hand made, then it could take quite a bit of time getting it crafted.
Any other thoughts on the planning phase?
Melda
Wannabe Psephologist
Thank you for the welcome. 
Can you direct me to the most relevant constitution(s) that were used last time?
Agreed with the idea that maps and things are considerations for later. I wouldn't mind an unseen map (whether it's randomly generated or what) to make it more of an unknown environment the country is embarking out into.
I have a lot of suggestions around electoral processes and structures, voting and political structures (presidential, mayoral, etc.) which I am guessing will probably differ from what has come before (hence the constitution question).
Is here the best place to post these ideas? I've given this a lot of thought (from keeping in mind various things like the potential limitation of users involved in the process, to trying to maintain a good balance of election timings to avoid voter disenfranchisement and voter fatigue and so on) and would like to share even if the ideas aren't adopted.
I'm also keen to read the previous constitution(s) so I can better acquaint myself with what's come before in case there are ideas there which are better than what I was going to suggest (or to avoid reinventing the wheel).
Can you direct me to the most relevant constitution(s) that were used last time?
Agreed with the idea that maps and things are considerations for later. I wouldn't mind an unseen map (whether it's randomly generated or what) to make it more of an unknown environment the country is embarking out into.
I have a lot of suggestions around electoral processes and structures, voting and political structures (presidential, mayoral, etc.) which I am guessing will probably differ from what has come before (hence the constitution question).
Is here the best place to post these ideas? I've given this a lot of thought (from keeping in mind various things like the potential limitation of users involved in the process, to trying to maintain a good balance of election timings to avoid voter disenfranchisement and voter fatigue and so on) and would like to share even if the ideas aren't adopted.
I'm also keen to read the previous constitution(s) so I can better acquaint myself with what's come before in case there are ideas there which are better than what I was going to suggest (or to avoid reinventing the wheel).
Melda
Wannabe Psephologist
Ill have a look through the forums and read the previous constitution(s) over the next few days. In the meantime Ive written down some thoughts Ive had which I thought people might be interested in reading.
A number of these ideas are probably different to what has come before which means theres a fair chance they wont be compatible with systems people want or that other, existing ideas will be more in line with how people want things run.
But I thought Id share my ideas here to see if any of them catch on and get adopted (either directly or through modification, or even if they just inspire some other thoughts which lead to something else).
Im not sure how this goes with roleplaying exactly (since presidential systems arent exactly endemic to the sixth century BCE) but there are some thoughts I had about a system which I think could be realistically implemented.
Firstly some background from me: Im a public servant and I work for a government agency in Australia. I have a passion for democracy related subjects and elections in particular. Apart from following very closely the campaigns and elections in which I partake as a voter I also follow other elections around the world. Ive read about and have a good understanding of a lot of different electoral systems ranging from the parliamentary-based constitutional monarchy which I participate in to the presidential system of the U.S. to other systems (I try to keep up to date with elections around the world but Ive just got back from overseas and Im playing catch-up; currently reading about the electoral history of Austria because that country had a federal election a few weeks ago incidentally if anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of different electoral systems around the world Im up for that because its a subject Im passionate about).
So Ill start off here with details about a system that I think could be good and after that Ill put forward some other options in case these ones arent to anyones liking (the first is my preference but I have backups just in case . . . having said that its entirely possible none of the ideas may be accepted but here goes anyway!).
1. Parties
Im not a massive fan of political parties; I think their presence blinds voters to the benefits of particular candidates because they end up wed to a particular party. Having said that I dont think political parties should be banned (just look at Swaziland for an example of what that looks like in real-world practice).
Happy to be overruled on the political party thing. This isnt something I feel strongly about but despite my misgivings about party systems I think some interesting and unexpected political parties could spontaneously develop throughout the game based on the contextual circumstances and challenges that will occur. And I think that could be interesting and worth seeing. Just as long as it doesnt turn into a nasty, partisan system of I could never consider you to be a worthy candidate despite your experience and credentials and policy positions solely because you belong to party X.
2. President
I think the system employed should be a presidential republic model (Im going to use the term president throughout but feel free to think of this as a more Civ-appropriate term) with a popularly elected president once a month using preferential voting. The winner is the first to exceed fifty percent of the vote. The result is not balanced out through any form of electoral college; its whichever candidate can win a simple majority of the voters.
Why preferential voting instead of first-past-the-post? To allow voters to vote for whichever candidate they want without having to worry about vote splitting or tactical voting. For example: Candidate A wants to start a war with Greece and Candidates B, C, D and E, F and G all campaign on no war platforms. If Candidate A has 30% the other six candidates could easily split the remaining 70% of the vote six-ways and allow the pro-war candidate to win even though most of the voters didnt vote for him/her. Another way of putting it is that most voters, even if they dont get the candidate they want are more likely to get a candidate they can tolerate.
The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Preferential voting is probably the thing I feel most strongly about. Its a system Im most familiar with here in Australia and while our electoral systems and politics have a number of flaws and failings this arguably is not one of them.
On the topic of electoral colleges. Why not include them? Because for such a small number of people that Im assuming will be involved in the administration of our political system it would be cumbersome, complicated and time consuming to calculate for every election. I understand the benefits and drawbacks of the system in the real world but just think it would be unnecessary here. However if anyone really wanted to implement an electoral college system I can think of two ways this could be implemented straight off the top of my head: 1) the population value for each city is the number of college votes available for winning a majority in the poll for that city and whoever wins the highest number of colleges wins overall or 2) more radically each city is worth precisely one college vote no matter their population size which put smaller cities on equal footing with larger ones.
3. Vice President
I think a post of vice president should exist as a backup in case the president goes AWOL for a set period of time between presidential elections (a week, two weeks?). Strict rules would need to be codified about when this could be triggered but I think having a backup to keep the game going during these unexpected circumstances without having to call a snap election would be a good way to avoid voters getting bored and leaving the game (e.g. if they know nothing is going to happen for three weeks).
Since the vice president is a very passive role that wont normally need to have any duties instead of having vice presidential candidates join presidential candidates on a ticket we could simply take whoever came second in the presidential election become the vice president. This would also provide some interesting balance and tension but because the vice president doesnt hold any real duties (other than act as an heir apparent) it shouldnt serve to undermine the authority of the president.
If anyones worried about the possibility of a vice president as a rival to the president in an election which just occurred very recently then ticket voting can be implemented. But I get the general impression were going to be running low on candidates to fill all the elected positions that will eventually be required and think this could be economical way to fill it. Alternatively we could simply not have a vice president and in the case of an incapacitated (read: AWOL) president the candidate who placed second in the election could be appointed as Acting President until the next scheduled presidential election is held.
4. Mayors
Each city should receive a popularly electoral mayor with only voters who are on the books or (roleplaying-wise) residing in that city eligible to vote. These mayoral elections should be held at a different point in the month to the presidential election for two reasons: to avoid the administrative burden of trying to run a country-wide president election at the same time as mayoral elections, and to allow candidates more flexibility (e.g. Candidate A wants to run for president but wouldnt mind running for mayor. He or she has to make a clear choice as to which office they want to run for whereas if the presidential elections are held and they lose out they can put themselves forward for mayor in another election later without missing out on any opportunities).
Mayoral elections should happen after president elections (perhaps two weeks after?) each month. All mayoral elections for all cities should be held simultaneously. Administratively this will be only slightly more of a burden than the presidential elections because they will have the same numbers of voters.
When a new city is founded, it is directly administered by the president until the next scheduled mayoral elections are held (this also applies for the capital for the first few weeks of the game).
Because the role of mayor for a particular city is not as of much consequence as that of president of the whole country if a mayor is incapacitated (read: AWOL) no replacement is appointed and the president directly administers the city until the next mayoral elections. I also think deputy mayor will be an unnecessary role that can simply not be included.
When the country has captured foreign cities but not annexed them (i.e. puppet cities) they wont receive a mayor.
If a city is lost in war and razed the mayors role ceases and the citys voters will be resettled within the country. If however the city is captured by the enemy the mayor can remain as a mayor-in-exile for a set period and perhaps retain all the rights and responsibilities that they normally have. If the city is retaken within that period, they serve out the remainder of their term.
I am of two minds with what to do with cities that are captured and not retaken by the next mayoral elections. Should elections be held for the lost city by the voters-in-exile for the mayor-in-exile so they can campaign the president to retake the city? Or would this be unproductive if the period of time in which the city remains in enemy hands draws on. It would seem pointless to have a mayor-in-exile and voters-in-exile of a city lost a hundred turns ago. Perhaps a set limit of time, such as one or two mayoral elections at which point if the city has not been retaken the mayor-in-exile ceases to act as a major and the voters of the lost city are forced to join other cities (more on this in 6. Elections).
I dont think mayoral candidates should need to reside within the city they are running for office; I think the voters will be able to decide if they want an outsider representing them or not. I do think outsiders if they win a mayoral election should have to reside within the city, though. The reason I dont think candidates should have to reside within the city is so we dont have people changing cities every month trying systematically to win a mayoral election; Id rather if they were going to do that to just stay where they are unless they win. Obviously I dont think candidates should be prevented from moving to reside within a city they want to run for office but I just dont think it should be a requirement to run. I think when it comes to mayoral elections candidates should only be able to stand for one city at a time though. Candidates should not be able to run for all cities simultaneously on the off-chance they might win one; they should pick a city to run for and do it. If it doesnt work, they can try another city next time.
5. Advisors
The advisors/ministers/secretaries (whatever we want to call them, e.g. Cultural advisor, Foreign Minister, Secretary of Defence) of the president who form a cabinet should serve at the pleasure of the president. That is to say they are appointed and dismissed by the president and not elected by popular vote. This will save a great many elections for the very many roles that I assume will quickly grow. Ideally these presidential advisors or members of the cabinet will not have other roles (i.e. they wont also be mayors) because it would dilute the amount of time and attention they have to their other roles but I dont think it should be prohibited (e.g. if someone has a lot of time on their hands and theyre mayor of a city that has already built everything it needs to and has no concerns why shouldnt they serve in cabinet?).
6. Elections
I believe all elections should be held as secret ballot. If any voters want to announce who theyve voted for thats fine but no-one should be under any obligation to share that information. Ideally a system should be arranged where not even the person/persons tallying the votes knows which voter voted for which candidate.
Voter rolls should be assembled. These rolls are used to make sure vote stuffing doesnt occur (while I'm all for the honour system we don't really want to receive more votes than we have registered voters on the books). And Im not sure what exactly system should be set up but it would be good if only the registered voters were physically able to vote (e.g. through a URL they receive by email or through a forum they only have write access to; I'm thinking an online survey site or perhaps a better example than this; open to suggestions). Each participant (even mayors and presidents) should be eligible to vote in presidential elections and mayoral elections of the cities they reside within. In order to be eligible to vote for the first time a voter must submit their name to the Electoral Commission (see 9. Electoral Commission) and their preferred electorate (i.e. city in which they wish to reside). This must be done within a set period of time before the next schedule vote (say, two days?). Failure to do so means they will not be eligible to vote. If a voter wishes to relocate cities they can inform the Electoral Commission by the deadline mentioned however voters will only be permitted to move cities once a month (or once every two months?) to avoid people moving strategically to vote in multiple elections per month. Now Im not sure how to measure this but we will need to remove inactive voters from the voting rolls periodically (once every two or three months?). Any thoughts on how to manage this would be appreciated (even if its just voters posting Ive voted in a forum post).
As previously stated mayoral elections for all cities should take place at the same time. These mayoral elections should take place a few weeks after the presidential elections.
Elections should take place on the first Saturday and third Saturday of each month (these are just example dates; it will be easier to do on weekends though). Whenever the game is ready to commence whichever of these dates are closest will become the presidential election date for this and all future months and the other date will become the mayoral election date.
Official campaign periods for the polls should be nominated (between one week and two days before the election date?). Campaigning prior to this period should not be banned but should be discouraged to avoid living in a state of constant campaign mode. Keeping the president/mayor to account for decisions people dont agree with doesnt necessary count as campaigning. Nominations for candidates should open about a week prior to the poll and close about two days prior to it to give the electoral authorities a chance to prepare the vote.
On election day the poll should open at 0001 on whatever the main timezone is employed here (Im not exactly clear on which one that is yet; GMT-7? Please correct me) and close at 2359. Votes should not physically be able to be received outside of those times (i.e. dont just refuse to count them; they shouldnt be able to be made at all so voters dont mistakenly think their vote has been counted if it hasnt).
If anyone is concerned about the lack of transparency involved in the process Ive outlined, especially with regard to secret ballot please refer to point 9. Electoral Commission below.
7. Powers and responsibilities
Elected officials should be able to carry out any duties they are empowered to without being required to consult the electorate (they will be judged at the ballot boxes for their decisions). That is to say if a president wants to implement a specific policy or settle in a particular location they should have the power to do so. Of course the president may choose to consult his or her cabinet, or choose to consult the mayors or even choose to consult the voters directly (see 8. Referenda) but constitutionally he or she will not be required to except in very specific circumstances outlined in the constitution.
I think the mayors should collectively as a group form a kind of de facto legislature. This is because there will probably be decisions where the president will need to consult the people and can do so through the peoples representatives without having to go down the route of referenda or without having to establish a whole new legislative body that would mostly remain inert throughout most of the game.
What powers should mayors have? Should they exist only to try to convince the president to make specific decisions to be undertaken by their city (e.g. if the president wants to build a tank but the people are crying out for a hospital can the mayor have only the power to try and talk the president around?) or should they have the power to determine what their city produces (e.g. in the previous example the president would need to convince the mayor that the country needs a tank and its in the best interest of the city to build one)? I am fond of the latter option because it would make mayors relevant and directly answerable to their voters wishes regarding how the city is run and what it produces.
Another thought is that collectively acting as a legislative body the mayors should be able to pass certain laws or make certain decisions. I havent really given much though to what kind of laws these are but they would probably be things we couldnt think of at the commencement of the game but which is not worth undertaking a constitutional amendment referendum to implement. The main thing I can think of is should the mayors be able to decide to declare war or peace on foreign nations? The reason I think this could be a feasible idea is twofold: I think the mayor of a city bordering a potential enemy through war should have a say in whether his or her city is put at risk, and this would act a check and balance to the power of the president who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This would mean a warmongering president, who is in charge of the military needs to convince at least half of the mayors that war is in the best interest of the nation before receiving authorisation to embark on it. Conversely if the mayors are a bunch of warmongers and the president is a peace-lover he can choose to keep the ships in dock and the soldiers in their barracks or in defensive positions only if the mayors succeed in starting a war.
My preferred model would be for each of the mayors to have an equal vote regardless of the size of their cities because it would help balance out decisions a la the Australian and U.S. senates where each state gets the same number of senators regardless of their size or population. The majority of the population get to have their say in picking a president so this would be a way to have smaller cities retain some say over matters.
Another option would be to weight each of the mayors' votes in their mayoral council based on their population size but its not my preferred model because the larger cities will already have a larger say in determining the presidency than the smaller ones (by virtue of the electorate size disparities) so this would be a way to counterbalance that.
Feel free to point out any issues or oversights here that I havent yet thought of. I just like the idea of checks and balances. And in the case of grid-lock the voters will only have to wait a few weeks to punish either the mayors or the president; whoever they deem to be out of line with community expectations.
8. Referenda
There will be occasions where a president will want to, or in some cases need to, consult the voters before a particular decision is made. The three tools that can be employed are plebiscites, referenda and what Im referring to here for ease of understanding as constitutional amendment referenda.
A plebiscite is like a referendum in that the voters are consulted formally but the outcome is non-binding. Times this might be useful is for when the president is unsure of a course of action, his or her cabinet are split down the middle as are the mayors. In this case a plebiscite (featuring two or more options) could help test the waters with the public. The president is not bound by the results and merely uses them to determine what to do next. If he or she wasnt sure of which of three technologies should be researched next it might help narrow down the options by seeing that one of the choices is extremely unpopular.
A general referendum is when the voters are consulted formally for a binding decision. An example of this could be if the mayors are refusing to declare war (if the mayors have such powers, see 7. Powers and responsibilities) the president could open it up to a referendum and if the majority of votes received exceed fifty percent (or whatever target is nominated) then the mayors are overruled and war is declared. Another example could be to have a rule where presidents can make any social policy decisions they want except in situations where starting a new social policy tree will invalidate or disable any of the previous trees. This could be somewhere that a referendum might constitutionally be required because of the consequences it has.
Constitutional amendments I believe should have a higher threshold which is defined within the constitution itself. While referenda for normal matters might only require a simple majority because the constitution is fundamental to the entire process the highest possible requirements for amendment proposals being adopted should be codified within the constitution. What I think should be required is a majority result of a majority of registered voters. Where this differs from a general referendum is that even if 40% of the voters dont turn up as long as 51% (or whatever the agreed target is) of those who do vote go for it then it passes. But a majority result from a majority of registered voters means a different threshold will be required in favour depending on voter turnout (this is why the maintenance of voting rolls by removing inactive voters is essential, as in 6. Elections). If 100% of the voters participate then 50% (or just above it) of a 'yes' vote will be necessary for the proposal to pass. If only 50% of the voters participate then 100% of a 'yes' vote will be required to pass. If only 70% of voters participate then a pass will require approximately 71% of ayes to satisfy the pass (divide 0.5 by the percentage of voters who participated to get the threshold, in this case 0.5/0.7 = ~71.4%).
I was thinking that only presidents could call referenda but perhaps it wouldnt be a bad idea if a majority-vote from the mayors could also initiate one. I dont think citizen-initiated referenda should exist because that could down the path of madness where every decision voters disagree with ends up resulting in a country-wide vote which renders pointless the idea of representative democracy where the appropriate venue for punishing leaders who dont do as the voters want is at the ballot box.
Any issues with the system that end up being adopted can be resolved through an amendment to the constitution (e.g. if a particular system results in gridlock this would be the path to take to have changes made to governance).
9. Electoral Commission
I think for the entire process to even have a chance of working the voters need to have faith in the elections as being free and fair. To this end I propose an electoral commission consisting of one or more commissioners who will compile the electoral rolls, manage the polls, determine and then publish the results. And these commissioners should be completely politically neutral. More than needing to be neutral they should be seen to be neutral. That means commissioners should not hold any political appointments (mayoral, presidential, cabinet, etc.), should not make any comments (or have any history of making comments) that would give any indication that they could not serve the presidents or mayors of the day and should not be members of any political parties (if such things exist as discussed in 1. Parties).
Furthermore I think commissioners should not have a vote for any polls they are involved in running (i.e. if a commissioner is running only one mayoral poll and thats all then they should still be eligible to vote in the presidential polls and they should be eligible to vote in another citys electorate, which means they would probably need to change the city where they reside or forego a mayoral vote). Because without faith in the electoral process everything will fall apart, I think new commissioners should be appointed only with the fullest confidence (either by a 100% yes vote by the mayors or by the kind of ultimate referendum vote normally reserved for constitutional amendments as discussed in 8. Referenda).
I am basing my ideal of an electoral commission on the Australian Electoral Commission, an excellent example of a truly independent, fair, impartial and non-partisan body that runs elections in Australia.
The disenfranchisement of commissioners might seem a bit harsh but because of the presumably low numbers of votes involved in each poll I want to reduce even the slightest chance of a lack of faith in the process. Also I would like to serve as electoral commissioner or as an assistant commissioner so while it is harsh I think it is fair and understandable and is something Im willing to subject myself to rather than just a standard Im expecting to be imposed on others.
Another idea I have is for each election to have a field with a question of something like do you believe this election process will be free and fair? and if the confidence level of that particular question even drops below a certain threshold, such as 90% or something appropriately high then it would be worth considering whether the commissioners should tender their resignations or put it to a referendum because if voters dont have faith in the process being free and fair then the wheels will fall off the entire process.
I also think the commission should act with probity and as such all communiqué, results and processes should be available for review by the relevant authorities, be it a group or person authorised by the president or mayors or possibly some kind of judiciary (see 10. Judiciary).
10. Judiciary
Some kind of judiciary should exist to investigate complaints (e.g. allegations of misconduct by officials, candidates or voters or infringements of the constitution) and hand down punishments. I dont know whether this should be an office or post set up or whether it should simply be a matter for forum moderators. I dont really have any suggestions on this point other than there should be some kind of judiciary or referee to sort out disputes. The judiciary should have (unfettered or just detailed?) access to electoral results in cases of dispute.
11. Wiki
I think it would be good record-keeping to have publicly available in a centralised location all election results and possibly even listings of all presidents and mayors throughout the course of the game. Would we have permission to use something like the Civilisation Modding Wiki? An example of what I think are a good way to represent results are like this.
12. Other matters
Those are the main points I had. But as I said I want to read through the constitutions/rules that have come before.
I think its important to make sure people have their say (through elections) regularly enough to not feel disenfranchised but not have them so often that they get voter fatigue (e.g. having to vote on every possible piece of minutiae that comes along).
I would like to see the voters of cities take ownership of the units they produce; not in the sense that they control them because obviously the president has that power but more that they should keep tabs on them to see what the fruits of their labour have wrought for the good of the country.
I envisage voters and their proxies the mayors arguing for the allocation of workers to their cities which the president will have to weigh up against the needs of the entire country, for example if other cities need workers more or if the country has too many units and this will be interesting to see unfold, the balancing of all these priorities, needs and wants.
So anyway those are some thoughts I had.
If anyone wants any clarification or further explanation on any of the ideas or points made above please let me know. Happy to go into more detail.
Even happier if any of the ideas get adopted but ultimately it depends on what the people involved in the game want. And thats the whole point in this experiment in democracy.
A number of these ideas are probably different to what has come before which means theres a fair chance they wont be compatible with systems people want or that other, existing ideas will be more in line with how people want things run.
But I thought Id share my ideas here to see if any of them catch on and get adopted (either directly or through modification, or even if they just inspire some other thoughts which lead to something else).
Im not sure how this goes with roleplaying exactly (since presidential systems arent exactly endemic to the sixth century BCE) but there are some thoughts I had about a system which I think could be realistically implemented.
Firstly some background from me: Im a public servant and I work for a government agency in Australia. I have a passion for democracy related subjects and elections in particular. Apart from following very closely the campaigns and elections in which I partake as a voter I also follow other elections around the world. Ive read about and have a good understanding of a lot of different electoral systems ranging from the parliamentary-based constitutional monarchy which I participate in to the presidential system of the U.S. to other systems (I try to keep up to date with elections around the world but Ive just got back from overseas and Im playing catch-up; currently reading about the electoral history of Austria because that country had a federal election a few weeks ago incidentally if anyone wants to discuss the pros and cons of different electoral systems around the world Im up for that because its a subject Im passionate about).
So Ill start off here with details about a system that I think could be good and after that Ill put forward some other options in case these ones arent to anyones liking (the first is my preference but I have backups just in case . . . having said that its entirely possible none of the ideas may be accepted but here goes anyway!
).1. Parties
Im not a massive fan of political parties; I think their presence blinds voters to the benefits of particular candidates because they end up wed to a particular party. Having said that I dont think political parties should be banned (just look at Swaziland for an example of what that looks like in real-world practice).
Happy to be overruled on the political party thing. This isnt something I feel strongly about but despite my misgivings about party systems I think some interesting and unexpected political parties could spontaneously develop throughout the game based on the contextual circumstances and challenges that will occur. And I think that could be interesting and worth seeing. Just as long as it doesnt turn into a nasty, partisan system of I could never consider you to be a worthy candidate despite your experience and credentials and policy positions solely because you belong to party X.
2. President
I think the system employed should be a presidential republic model (Im going to use the term president throughout but feel free to think of this as a more Civ-appropriate term) with a popularly elected president once a month using preferential voting. The winner is the first to exceed fifty percent of the vote. The result is not balanced out through any form of electoral college; its whichever candidate can win a simple majority of the voters.
Why preferential voting instead of first-past-the-post? To allow voters to vote for whichever candidate they want without having to worry about vote splitting or tactical voting. For example: Candidate A wants to start a war with Greece and Candidates B, C, D and E, F and G all campaign on no war platforms. If Candidate A has 30% the other six candidates could easily split the remaining 70% of the vote six-ways and allow the pro-war candidate to win even though most of the voters didnt vote for him/her. Another way of putting it is that most voters, even if they dont get the candidate they want are more likely to get a candidate they can tolerate.
The president is commander-in-chief of the armed forces.
Preferential voting is probably the thing I feel most strongly about. Its a system Im most familiar with here in Australia and while our electoral systems and politics have a number of flaws and failings this arguably is not one of them.
On the topic of electoral colleges. Why not include them? Because for such a small number of people that Im assuming will be involved in the administration of our political system it would be cumbersome, complicated and time consuming to calculate for every election. I understand the benefits and drawbacks of the system in the real world but just think it would be unnecessary here. However if anyone really wanted to implement an electoral college system I can think of two ways this could be implemented straight off the top of my head: 1) the population value for each city is the number of college votes available for winning a majority in the poll for that city and whoever wins the highest number of colleges wins overall or 2) more radically each city is worth precisely one college vote no matter their population size which put smaller cities on equal footing with larger ones.
3. Vice President
I think a post of vice president should exist as a backup in case the president goes AWOL for a set period of time between presidential elections (a week, two weeks?). Strict rules would need to be codified about when this could be triggered but I think having a backup to keep the game going during these unexpected circumstances without having to call a snap election would be a good way to avoid voters getting bored and leaving the game (e.g. if they know nothing is going to happen for three weeks).
Since the vice president is a very passive role that wont normally need to have any duties instead of having vice presidential candidates join presidential candidates on a ticket we could simply take whoever came second in the presidential election become the vice president. This would also provide some interesting balance and tension but because the vice president doesnt hold any real duties (other than act as an heir apparent) it shouldnt serve to undermine the authority of the president.
If anyones worried about the possibility of a vice president as a rival to the president in an election which just occurred very recently then ticket voting can be implemented. But I get the general impression were going to be running low on candidates to fill all the elected positions that will eventually be required and think this could be economical way to fill it. Alternatively we could simply not have a vice president and in the case of an incapacitated (read: AWOL) president the candidate who placed second in the election could be appointed as Acting President until the next scheduled presidential election is held.
4. Mayors
Each city should receive a popularly electoral mayor with only voters who are on the books or (roleplaying-wise) residing in that city eligible to vote. These mayoral elections should be held at a different point in the month to the presidential election for two reasons: to avoid the administrative burden of trying to run a country-wide president election at the same time as mayoral elections, and to allow candidates more flexibility (e.g. Candidate A wants to run for president but wouldnt mind running for mayor. He or she has to make a clear choice as to which office they want to run for whereas if the presidential elections are held and they lose out they can put themselves forward for mayor in another election later without missing out on any opportunities).
Mayoral elections should happen after president elections (perhaps two weeks after?) each month. All mayoral elections for all cities should be held simultaneously. Administratively this will be only slightly more of a burden than the presidential elections because they will have the same numbers of voters.
When a new city is founded, it is directly administered by the president until the next scheduled mayoral elections are held (this also applies for the capital for the first few weeks of the game).
Because the role of mayor for a particular city is not as of much consequence as that of president of the whole country if a mayor is incapacitated (read: AWOL) no replacement is appointed and the president directly administers the city until the next mayoral elections. I also think deputy mayor will be an unnecessary role that can simply not be included.
When the country has captured foreign cities but not annexed them (i.e. puppet cities) they wont receive a mayor.
If a city is lost in war and razed the mayors role ceases and the citys voters will be resettled within the country. If however the city is captured by the enemy the mayor can remain as a mayor-in-exile for a set period and perhaps retain all the rights and responsibilities that they normally have. If the city is retaken within that period, they serve out the remainder of their term.
I am of two minds with what to do with cities that are captured and not retaken by the next mayoral elections. Should elections be held for the lost city by the voters-in-exile for the mayor-in-exile so they can campaign the president to retake the city? Or would this be unproductive if the period of time in which the city remains in enemy hands draws on. It would seem pointless to have a mayor-in-exile and voters-in-exile of a city lost a hundred turns ago. Perhaps a set limit of time, such as one or two mayoral elections at which point if the city has not been retaken the mayor-in-exile ceases to act as a major and the voters of the lost city are forced to join other cities (more on this in 6. Elections).
I dont think mayoral candidates should need to reside within the city they are running for office; I think the voters will be able to decide if they want an outsider representing them or not. I do think outsiders if they win a mayoral election should have to reside within the city, though. The reason I dont think candidates should have to reside within the city is so we dont have people changing cities every month trying systematically to win a mayoral election; Id rather if they were going to do that to just stay where they are unless they win. Obviously I dont think candidates should be prevented from moving to reside within a city they want to run for office but I just dont think it should be a requirement to run. I think when it comes to mayoral elections candidates should only be able to stand for one city at a time though. Candidates should not be able to run for all cities simultaneously on the off-chance they might win one; they should pick a city to run for and do it. If it doesnt work, they can try another city next time.
5. Advisors
The advisors/ministers/secretaries (whatever we want to call them, e.g. Cultural advisor, Foreign Minister, Secretary of Defence) of the president who form a cabinet should serve at the pleasure of the president. That is to say they are appointed and dismissed by the president and not elected by popular vote. This will save a great many elections for the very many roles that I assume will quickly grow. Ideally these presidential advisors or members of the cabinet will not have other roles (i.e. they wont also be mayors) because it would dilute the amount of time and attention they have to their other roles but I dont think it should be prohibited (e.g. if someone has a lot of time on their hands and theyre mayor of a city that has already built everything it needs to and has no concerns why shouldnt they serve in cabinet?).
6. Elections
I believe all elections should be held as secret ballot. If any voters want to announce who theyve voted for thats fine but no-one should be under any obligation to share that information. Ideally a system should be arranged where not even the person/persons tallying the votes knows which voter voted for which candidate.
Voter rolls should be assembled. These rolls are used to make sure vote stuffing doesnt occur (while I'm all for the honour system we don't really want to receive more votes than we have registered voters on the books). And Im not sure what exactly system should be set up but it would be good if only the registered voters were physically able to vote (e.g. through a URL they receive by email or through a forum they only have write access to; I'm thinking an online survey site or perhaps a better example than this; open to suggestions). Each participant (even mayors and presidents) should be eligible to vote in presidential elections and mayoral elections of the cities they reside within. In order to be eligible to vote for the first time a voter must submit their name to the Electoral Commission (see 9. Electoral Commission) and their preferred electorate (i.e. city in which they wish to reside). This must be done within a set period of time before the next schedule vote (say, two days?). Failure to do so means they will not be eligible to vote. If a voter wishes to relocate cities they can inform the Electoral Commission by the deadline mentioned however voters will only be permitted to move cities once a month (or once every two months?) to avoid people moving strategically to vote in multiple elections per month. Now Im not sure how to measure this but we will need to remove inactive voters from the voting rolls periodically (once every two or three months?). Any thoughts on how to manage this would be appreciated (even if its just voters posting Ive voted in a forum post).
As previously stated mayoral elections for all cities should take place at the same time. These mayoral elections should take place a few weeks after the presidential elections.
Elections should take place on the first Saturday and third Saturday of each month (these are just example dates; it will be easier to do on weekends though). Whenever the game is ready to commence whichever of these dates are closest will become the presidential election date for this and all future months and the other date will become the mayoral election date.
Official campaign periods for the polls should be nominated (between one week and two days before the election date?). Campaigning prior to this period should not be banned but should be discouraged to avoid living in a state of constant campaign mode. Keeping the president/mayor to account for decisions people dont agree with doesnt necessary count as campaigning. Nominations for candidates should open about a week prior to the poll and close about two days prior to it to give the electoral authorities a chance to prepare the vote.
On election day the poll should open at 0001 on whatever the main timezone is employed here (Im not exactly clear on which one that is yet; GMT-7? Please correct me) and close at 2359. Votes should not physically be able to be received outside of those times (i.e. dont just refuse to count them; they shouldnt be able to be made at all so voters dont mistakenly think their vote has been counted if it hasnt).
If anyone is concerned about the lack of transparency involved in the process Ive outlined, especially with regard to secret ballot please refer to point 9. Electoral Commission below.
7. Powers and responsibilities
Elected officials should be able to carry out any duties they are empowered to without being required to consult the electorate (they will be judged at the ballot boxes for their decisions). That is to say if a president wants to implement a specific policy or settle in a particular location they should have the power to do so. Of course the president may choose to consult his or her cabinet, or choose to consult the mayors or even choose to consult the voters directly (see 8. Referenda) but constitutionally he or she will not be required to except in very specific circumstances outlined in the constitution.
I think the mayors should collectively as a group form a kind of de facto legislature. This is because there will probably be decisions where the president will need to consult the people and can do so through the peoples representatives without having to go down the route of referenda or without having to establish a whole new legislative body that would mostly remain inert throughout most of the game.
What powers should mayors have? Should they exist only to try to convince the president to make specific decisions to be undertaken by their city (e.g. if the president wants to build a tank but the people are crying out for a hospital can the mayor have only the power to try and talk the president around?) or should they have the power to determine what their city produces (e.g. in the previous example the president would need to convince the mayor that the country needs a tank and its in the best interest of the city to build one)? I am fond of the latter option because it would make mayors relevant and directly answerable to their voters wishes regarding how the city is run and what it produces.
Another thought is that collectively acting as a legislative body the mayors should be able to pass certain laws or make certain decisions. I havent really given much though to what kind of laws these are but they would probably be things we couldnt think of at the commencement of the game but which is not worth undertaking a constitutional amendment referendum to implement. The main thing I can think of is should the mayors be able to decide to declare war or peace on foreign nations? The reason I think this could be a feasible idea is twofold: I think the mayor of a city bordering a potential enemy through war should have a say in whether his or her city is put at risk, and this would act a check and balance to the power of the president who is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. This would mean a warmongering president, who is in charge of the military needs to convince at least half of the mayors that war is in the best interest of the nation before receiving authorisation to embark on it. Conversely if the mayors are a bunch of warmongers and the president is a peace-lover he can choose to keep the ships in dock and the soldiers in their barracks or in defensive positions only if the mayors succeed in starting a war.
My preferred model would be for each of the mayors to have an equal vote regardless of the size of their cities because it would help balance out decisions a la the Australian and U.S. senates where each state gets the same number of senators regardless of their size or population. The majority of the population get to have their say in picking a president so this would be a way to have smaller cities retain some say over matters.
Another option would be to weight each of the mayors' votes in their mayoral council based on their population size but its not my preferred model because the larger cities will already have a larger say in determining the presidency than the smaller ones (by virtue of the electorate size disparities) so this would be a way to counterbalance that.
Feel free to point out any issues or oversights here that I havent yet thought of. I just like the idea of checks and balances. And in the case of grid-lock the voters will only have to wait a few weeks to punish either the mayors or the president; whoever they deem to be out of line with community expectations.
8. Referenda
There will be occasions where a president will want to, or in some cases need to, consult the voters before a particular decision is made. The three tools that can be employed are plebiscites, referenda and what Im referring to here for ease of understanding as constitutional amendment referenda.
A plebiscite is like a referendum in that the voters are consulted formally but the outcome is non-binding. Times this might be useful is for when the president is unsure of a course of action, his or her cabinet are split down the middle as are the mayors. In this case a plebiscite (featuring two or more options) could help test the waters with the public. The president is not bound by the results and merely uses them to determine what to do next. If he or she wasnt sure of which of three technologies should be researched next it might help narrow down the options by seeing that one of the choices is extremely unpopular.
A general referendum is when the voters are consulted formally for a binding decision. An example of this could be if the mayors are refusing to declare war (if the mayors have such powers, see 7. Powers and responsibilities) the president could open it up to a referendum and if the majority of votes received exceed fifty percent (or whatever target is nominated) then the mayors are overruled and war is declared. Another example could be to have a rule where presidents can make any social policy decisions they want except in situations where starting a new social policy tree will invalidate or disable any of the previous trees. This could be somewhere that a referendum might constitutionally be required because of the consequences it has.
Constitutional amendments I believe should have a higher threshold which is defined within the constitution itself. While referenda for normal matters might only require a simple majority because the constitution is fundamental to the entire process the highest possible requirements for amendment proposals being adopted should be codified within the constitution. What I think should be required is a majority result of a majority of registered voters. Where this differs from a general referendum is that even if 40% of the voters dont turn up as long as 51% (or whatever the agreed target is) of those who do vote go for it then it passes. But a majority result from a majority of registered voters means a different threshold will be required in favour depending on voter turnout (this is why the maintenance of voting rolls by removing inactive voters is essential, as in 6. Elections). If 100% of the voters participate then 50% (or just above it) of a 'yes' vote will be necessary for the proposal to pass. If only 50% of the voters participate then 100% of a 'yes' vote will be required to pass. If only 70% of voters participate then a pass will require approximately 71% of ayes to satisfy the pass (divide 0.5 by the percentage of voters who participated to get the threshold, in this case 0.5/0.7 = ~71.4%).
I was thinking that only presidents could call referenda but perhaps it wouldnt be a bad idea if a majority-vote from the mayors could also initiate one. I dont think citizen-initiated referenda should exist because that could down the path of madness where every decision voters disagree with ends up resulting in a country-wide vote which renders pointless the idea of representative democracy where the appropriate venue for punishing leaders who dont do as the voters want is at the ballot box.
Any issues with the system that end up being adopted can be resolved through an amendment to the constitution (e.g. if a particular system results in gridlock this would be the path to take to have changes made to governance).
9. Electoral Commission
I think for the entire process to even have a chance of working the voters need to have faith in the elections as being free and fair. To this end I propose an electoral commission consisting of one or more commissioners who will compile the electoral rolls, manage the polls, determine and then publish the results. And these commissioners should be completely politically neutral. More than needing to be neutral they should be seen to be neutral. That means commissioners should not hold any political appointments (mayoral, presidential, cabinet, etc.), should not make any comments (or have any history of making comments) that would give any indication that they could not serve the presidents or mayors of the day and should not be members of any political parties (if such things exist as discussed in 1. Parties).
Furthermore I think commissioners should not have a vote for any polls they are involved in running (i.e. if a commissioner is running only one mayoral poll and thats all then they should still be eligible to vote in the presidential polls and they should be eligible to vote in another citys electorate, which means they would probably need to change the city where they reside or forego a mayoral vote). Because without faith in the electoral process everything will fall apart, I think new commissioners should be appointed only with the fullest confidence (either by a 100% yes vote by the mayors or by the kind of ultimate referendum vote normally reserved for constitutional amendments as discussed in 8. Referenda).
I am basing my ideal of an electoral commission on the Australian Electoral Commission, an excellent example of a truly independent, fair, impartial and non-partisan body that runs elections in Australia.
The disenfranchisement of commissioners might seem a bit harsh but because of the presumably low numbers of votes involved in each poll I want to reduce even the slightest chance of a lack of faith in the process. Also I would like to serve as electoral commissioner or as an assistant commissioner so while it is harsh I think it is fair and understandable and is something Im willing to subject myself to rather than just a standard Im expecting to be imposed on others.
Another idea I have is for each election to have a field with a question of something like do you believe this election process will be free and fair? and if the confidence level of that particular question even drops below a certain threshold, such as 90% or something appropriately high then it would be worth considering whether the commissioners should tender their resignations or put it to a referendum because if voters dont have faith in the process being free and fair then the wheels will fall off the entire process.
I also think the commission should act with probity and as such all communiqué, results and processes should be available for review by the relevant authorities, be it a group or person authorised by the president or mayors or possibly some kind of judiciary (see 10. Judiciary).
10. Judiciary
Some kind of judiciary should exist to investigate complaints (e.g. allegations of misconduct by officials, candidates or voters or infringements of the constitution) and hand down punishments. I dont know whether this should be an office or post set up or whether it should simply be a matter for forum moderators. I dont really have any suggestions on this point other than there should be some kind of judiciary or referee to sort out disputes. The judiciary should have (unfettered or just detailed?) access to electoral results in cases of dispute.
11. Wiki
I think it would be good record-keeping to have publicly available in a centralised location all election results and possibly even listings of all presidents and mayors throughout the course of the game. Would we have permission to use something like the Civilisation Modding Wiki? An example of what I think are a good way to represent results are like this.
12. Other matters
Those are the main points I had. But as I said I want to read through the constitutions/rules that have come before.
I think its important to make sure people have their say (through elections) regularly enough to not feel disenfranchised but not have them so often that they get voter fatigue (e.g. having to vote on every possible piece of minutiae that comes along).
I would like to see the voters of cities take ownership of the units they produce; not in the sense that they control them because obviously the president has that power but more that they should keep tabs on them to see what the fruits of their labour have wrought for the good of the country.
I envisage voters and their proxies the mayors arguing for the allocation of workers to their cities which the president will have to weigh up against the needs of the entire country, for example if other cities need workers more or if the country has too many units and this will be interesting to see unfold, the balancing of all these priorities, needs and wants.
So anyway those are some thoughts I had.
If anyone wants any clarification or further explanation on any of the ideas or points made above please let me know. Happy to go into more detail.
Even happier if any of the ideas get adopted but ultimately it depends on what the people involved in the game want. And thats the whole point in this experiment in democracy.
Melda
Wannabe Psephologist
Sorry for the double-post (or triple-post if you count the post from a few days previously) but when I tried to edit my post it said the additions made it exceed the world limit.
Here's what I was going to add in as an edit:
Edit: Something I just thought about relating to the presumably (at least initially) low participation rates that we might encounter is that perhaps a city is not eligible to have a mayor until it has a minimum number of voters who 'reside' there. Should this be three? Five? It doesn't seem logical to have a mayor voted in with two citizens or only one (themselves in this case). If a city doesn't have enough voters by the close of nominations for the monthly mayoral elections it goes without a mayor for that month and the city is administered directly by the president. Any voters who wish to reside in these mayor-less cities would still be eligible to vote in presidential elections however I'm sure many of them would rather reside in a city that is eligible for mayoral elections at least until such time as it looks like they might be able to attract enough people to the mayor-less city. This clearly wouldn't be an issue at the start of the game when only the capital city exists but is more a consideration with the more cities that are founded as the game goes on. It's a way of making sure the mayoral representation does not exceed the number of voters supporting the game. Mayors or prospective mayors would need to not only win the vote but also try to make sure they attract voters to live in their cities. In an extreme situation where the number of participants dropped to unbelievably low levels and not even the capital city has representation by a mayor then there should be provision within the constitution to allow for the president to take on any responsibilities that the mayors would normally do until such time as the voter numbers increase. I still think the set election dates should remain as they are so if a city doesn't have enough voters to support a mayor and then immediately after the election they finally do they'll still have to wait until the next one (I don't think we should ever have movable election dates because the predictability and reliability of when the occur will be useful; people who only participate occasionally will still know when to check in for elections --- an example in the television world is whenever an executive wants to kill off a popular television show they make sure they constantly move around the time and day it's on so that the number of viewers drops to such a low level that they can 'justifiably' kill it . . . so I think we should make sure we maintain regularity).
Here's what I was going to add in as an edit:
Edit: Something I just thought about relating to the presumably (at least initially) low participation rates that we might encounter is that perhaps a city is not eligible to have a mayor until it has a minimum number of voters who 'reside' there. Should this be three? Five? It doesn't seem logical to have a mayor voted in with two citizens or only one (themselves in this case). If a city doesn't have enough voters by the close of nominations for the monthly mayoral elections it goes without a mayor for that month and the city is administered directly by the president. Any voters who wish to reside in these mayor-less cities would still be eligible to vote in presidential elections however I'm sure many of them would rather reside in a city that is eligible for mayoral elections at least until such time as it looks like they might be able to attract enough people to the mayor-less city. This clearly wouldn't be an issue at the start of the game when only the capital city exists but is more a consideration with the more cities that are founded as the game goes on. It's a way of making sure the mayoral representation does not exceed the number of voters supporting the game. Mayors or prospective mayors would need to not only win the vote but also try to make sure they attract voters to live in their cities. In an extreme situation where the number of participants dropped to unbelievably low levels and not even the capital city has representation by a mayor then there should be provision within the constitution to allow for the president to take on any responsibilities that the mayors would normally do until such time as the voter numbers increase. I still think the set election dates should remain as they are so if a city doesn't have enough voters to support a mayor and then immediately after the election they finally do they'll still have to wait until the next one (I don't think we should ever have movable election dates because the predictability and reliability of when the occur will be useful; people who only participate occasionally will still know when to check in for elections --- an example in the television world is whenever an executive wants to kill off a popular television show they make sure they constantly move around the time and day it's on so that the number of viewers drops to such a low level that they can 'justifiably' kill it . . . so I think we should make sure we maintain regularity).
Strider
In Retrospect
- Joined
- Jan 7, 2002
- Messages
- 8,984
As someone who wrote and worked on a good many of the past demogame constitutions I want to make a few suggestions before to delve to deeply into creating a new one.
First off, some of the past constitutions were massive. They were huge documents, while worthy of the term constitution, did nothing to help welcome people to the game. We basically greeted people by saying "Hello! Welcome! Now here is the 40 pages of rules you must read to continue." I not only suggest that we try to keep a new constitution as simple as possible, but make simplicity the priority while constructing it. That could, very well, make a huge difference in how the game grows. Secondly, I would also like to make the suggestion that we make the number of 'official' elected positions down to a minimum. To begin with this keeps the number of people actually needed to run the game to only a few. More importantly, however, this will help to remove some of the elitism that we saw in past games as well. Finally, let us please put a term limit, a very short one, on elected officials. This way we can maximize the number of people who get a shot at the 'top seat.' We should encourage citizens to be active with some attainable goal. I would love to see a one consecutive term limit. This way we keep relatively fresh faces in the elected positions.
First off, some of the past constitutions were massive. They were huge documents, while worthy of the term constitution, did nothing to help welcome people to the game. We basically greeted people by saying "Hello! Welcome! Now here is the 40 pages of rules you must read to continue." I not only suggest that we try to keep a new constitution as simple as possible, but make simplicity the priority while constructing it. That could, very well, make a huge difference in how the game grows. Secondly, I would also like to make the suggestion that we make the number of 'official' elected positions down to a minimum. To begin with this keeps the number of people actually needed to run the game to only a few. More importantly, however, this will help to remove some of the elitism that we saw in past games as well. Finally, let us please put a term limit, a very short one, on elected officials. This way we can maximize the number of people who get a shot at the 'top seat.' We should encourage citizens to be active with some attainable goal. I would love to see a one consecutive term limit. This way we keep relatively fresh faces in the elected positions.
