Deputies

[Alphawolf]

I'm not even arguing for a majority but I think at least 45% of the people should support our leadership and that our leadership should be able to act decisively and without internal conflict.

We aren't always going to be able to get 45%, but for an important office like President I think 33% and at least 10% a head of everyone else or 45% wouldn't be a bad idea. All the others should be winner takes all.

I understand your position about deputies. I think the rule concerning deputies shouldn't be in the Constitution so it's easy to change if we decide we don't like it. But I believe in most cases the deputy should be the runner, that way more vote are represented in the government.

But about the bickering, do deputies even have powers defined in a law or can the elected officer just ignore them?

-the Wolf

 

[Furiey]

Let the winner appoint his own Deputy.

A Minister needs to be able to work with his Deputy, rely on him to fill in any gaps, pick up dropped balls, and take over in times of need. What nobody needs is a Deputy who tries to backstab you and undermines you position. So no to automatically making your closest rival in the election your Deputy, yes to being able to choose your own. You want someone enthusiastic, who wants the job, and that could well be the runner up, but don't force it.

 

[Alphawolf]

A bit off topic but I would like an answer to this:
Should an Elected Office Holder be able to dismiss his deputy?

-the Wolf

 

[RoboPig]

oh! i have an idea! as furiey said the deputy should be a friend. so why not have two. in an election your name would appear with the deputy's on the ticket. you and the deputy would be voted in and the runner up would become your 2nd deputy

 

[RoboPig]

A bit off topic but I would like an answer to this:
Should an Elected Office Holder be able to dismiss his deputy?

-the Wolf

if you go with my idea then no

 

[ravensfire]

if you go with my idea then no

That's a darn good reason to not like that idea then.

-- Ravensfire

 

[RoboPig]

heres my idea properly explained:

Say that person A wants to run for president and is nominated. person C also wants to run for president and gets nominated. Now in the old way of election person A and B would run against each other and the winner would appoint his/her deputy/VP afterwards. in my idea person A would have to announce that if s/he wins then they would make person B their VP. Person C would have to say that person D will be their VP. Now if person C wins then person D becomes his/her VP. But person A would become his/her 2nd deputy so that the largest minority has a voice in government of each section as well. Person B would gain nothing. if the election is uncontested then the winner could appoint whoever they wanted as the 2 deputies.

 

[Man'O'Action]

Under the right honorable RoboPig's suggestion, we still have the problem of a black sheep in the family. The deputy, even though he is now one of two, would be either working crossways to his own moral compass or working crossways to that of the elected leader.

At anyrate if the idea of the 2nd place candidate is appealing to the winning candidate (or the public for that matter) it is an easy campaign promise to make to appoint your defeated opponent.

I would urge my colleauges and fellow citizens to reject the "loser wins" concept, and support run off elections.

 

[RoboPig]

we could make betrayal illegal in the constitution and Person A would only be advissing the minister on what to do. this way the 2nd deputy could do the turn chat under the specified orders while trying to balance the specific ministry's views.
many thanks for calling me right honorable

 

[Alphawolf]

I would urge my colleauges and fellow citizens to reject the "loser wins" concept, and support run off elections.

Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf

 

[GenMarshall]

Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf

Luckly thoes have been rare in the Demogame . But we still need an implemation for runoff election if they do happen.

 

[Alphawolf]

Luckly thoes have been rare in the Demogame . But we still need an implemation for runoff election if they do happen.

I was referring to runoffs for the elections of the Deputies, not a runoff in a general election.

-the Wolf

 

[DaveShack]

I still very strongly want runners-up to be deputies.

My reasoning is very simple. When I win elections, most of the time the deputy position goes unfilled, because I don't like to appoint people who won't take the trouble to at least apply for the job. At least a competitor for the position is someone we know wants the job.

Runners-up should be allowed to decline the deputy position or there may only be one candidate of course, so that means we still need a mechanism for appointments, but it sure would make life simpler if we had a designated choice.

 

[Gloriana]

I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation. There is then also no need to include a possibility for the minister to send home his deputy.

 

[Slim_Chance]

I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation.

I fully agree with you here.

An Old Man

 

[Knightlancer]

I agree with Wolf that we should take deputies out of the Constitution and into the Code of Laws, so we can change things easily.

Also, deputies should not have any power unless granted by the minister they serve. Their purpose is advising and aiding their minister, so runner-ups can easily fulfull that position; if a minister disagrees or has a completely different point of view then he can ignore his deputy, otherwise they can have a fruitful cooperation. There is then also no need to include a possibility for the minister to send home his deputy.

Yup, you're right on here.

-KL

 

[CaliSurfer]

I strongly believe it should be the runner-up.

 

[Man'O'Action]

Runoffs would take too much time.

-the Wolf

As an clarification of my earlier statement, I do not support run-off elections for deputies. I support deputies by appointment. I do support run-off elections for races where the winner receives less than 40% of the vote.

I still very strongly want runners-up to be deputies.

I can certainly understand the sincerity of the beliefs of the gentleman from Arizona. However this does not change the truth of the situation.

Below we see my colleague's stated motivation for his support of loser-wins.

My reasoning is very simple. When I win elections, most of the time the deputy position goes unfilled, because I don't like to appoint people who won't take the trouble to at least apply for the job. At least a competitor for the position is someone we know wants the job.

Hidden in here is the very reason why appointment is the most flexible form of election of deputies. When the people elect the Honorable DaveShack to a position because of his proven track record of leadership he will be free to appoint the runner-up in his election to be his deputy as he see fits, and as should be his right as the duly elected leader.

The appointment method clearly provides both sides of this debate with the ability to govern as they see fit. Once again I urge all fellow citizens to support appointments and reject the well motivated but poorly designed loser-wins scheme.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

The appointment method clearly provides both sides of this debate with the ability to govern as they see fit. Once again I urge all fellow citizens to support appointments and reject the well motivated but poorly designed loser-wins scheme.

The people of the Warm Tummy Fuzzies are delighted with this loser wins scenario. It builds the emerging "Kumbaya" nature of the Democracy game, where for the sake of participation one can lose an election and still win! You don't even have to sign up to the game to play anymore, and if you ask real nice (aka nominate yourself) you will even get a chance to play the actual game! How can I be so sure? Because with our lenient enforcement of savegame protocol, everyone gets voted in to be an honorary DP!

We of the Warm Tummy Fuzzies embrace all that is happy and nice with this new Demogame, as there will be no hurt feelings for anyone anymore! So let's all hold hands and put the challenge of real government behind us. After all, that's hard work!

So here's to a super-de-dooper DemoGame from the Warm Tummy Fuzzies! YAY! Never heard of us? Well maybe we are better known by our initials: WTF

 

[Stilgar08]

Donovan: I can see where your avatar comes from! It shows your very soul! Great!

P.S.: To make this post not completely off-topic: Appointments: Yes!!!

How about a new poll with less options (maybe only the two major ones??) to ensure clearer results???