Article G - The Wording of...

[Cyc]

This poll shall determine the wording of Article G of the DG4 Constitotion. After 3 or 4 pages of debate, six options have surfaced which seem to represent the will of the people. All of these options were presented in a form that could be used as a bonified Article G. As you consider each of these options, focus on the wording and keep in mind that the supporting books of the CoL and the CoS will be utilized to help us define this Article. Also keep in mind that the Constitution is the basis for the Code of Laws and the Code of Standards, and guides those writings proposed by the People.

Please choose one of the following options to be used as the wording of Article G of the DG4 Constitution.

1. All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

2. All offices so designated by the legislature shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

3. All offices will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms.

4. Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law.

5. All offices will be filled via election with terms lasting one calendar month.

6. Removal of article, each branch specifies procedures.


The winning option for this poll shall be Article G in the DG4 Constitution. (Except #6, obviously.)

This poll will remain open or 4 days.
There is no abstain option.
Discussion can be found right here.

 

[Cyc]

I would appreciate it if a Mod could correct the Poll Question.

@Cyc - done DZ

Thank you, DZ!

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Talk about timing........I posted this in the Article G thread six minutes after after Cyc's poll announcement. Some food for thought about the word "elect" in all its forms.

Not to delay things too much more but based on the following, I think we need to take some other things into consideration here.

A reasonable compromise would be that any appointee can be confirmed by the people in an election, should that appointee ever need to be elevated to leader status. While I share Cyc's views on appointments to the letter, I would not be against having a 48 hour nomination/election process to fill an unexpected vacancy. The (appointed) deputy would maintain temporary control of the office, and would be entitled to run for the vacant leadership position. If there are no other nominees then the deputy gets the job, as things would work the same as they would in an uncontested election.

So, now I just thought of something else. Not to make things more confusing, but what the hey, it's late.

Throughout our history, in the event of uncontested elections an election never takes place. Our constitution should be wary of these fortunate people as well. Why should they get all the Constitutional perks of leadership just because no one else was interested in the position?

I am starting to think that the word "elected" is the biggest hindrance to our reaching a consensus on this article. Is there any way to draft this article without using this word, or do we really have to re-think everything to allow this word to stay? If appointments go, then uncontested election process should go as well.....unless we can somehow lose the word "elected" from this article.

This should be interesting. I'm waiting...................................

 

[Cyc]

Well, yer right DZ. Maybe we could say that candidates who win by this means won by "Uncontested Elections". That way they still win by election.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Possibly, or maybe we put him up against Abstain.

My main point is that having the word "elected" in this article of the Constitution does not bode well for those who want appointments. I can see all five of these options putting any appointment talks in jeopardy. For ths reason, I have not voted yet.

 

[ravensfire]

Perhaps it's just a matter of perception. If a person is running for election uncontested, why bother to even list them - it just takes up time. The person is still elected to the office in a technical sense, even if we skip an actual poll.

-- Ravensfire

 

[FortyJ]

DZ...



Just because an official runs unopposed, does not mean that he or she is not an elected official. Period. This is not an issue of semantics, nor perception. A candidate that runs for office against nobody is elected by default, thus becoming an elected official.

There is no "None of the Above" candidate (a la Brewster's Millions) and Abstain is not an option during elections. If nobody else accepts a nomination, the one poor sap that did is essentially elected by acclamation and is due all the rights and privileges of those that actually had to suffer through a poll.

Please, for the love of God, can we all just stop nitpicking every single word in these laws so that we might, just might have a chance of getting through the Constitution, Code of Laws and Code of Standards sometime this decade?

EDIT: Sorry for the venting. It was not intended to be directed at you, or anyone specifically for that matter. It is just that I am rapidly losing all patience for this process and I fear that what little good we may gain from these ammendments may be grossly overshadowed by the harm we do to our efforts to increase participation.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Possibly, or maybe we put him up against Abstain.

My main point is that having the word "elected" in this article of the Constitution does not bode well for those who want appointments. I can see all five of these options putting any appointment talks in jeopardy. For ths reason, I have not voted yet.

Well, DZ, if we had waited just a few days, taken that time to discuss the issue of appointments versus elections, polled it and THEN wrote this article we could have worded it so that it would either allow or forbid appointments according to the decision made. Instead of actually making a decision we're rushing through with writing the constitution and leaving the door wide open for the type of expedient used in DG3 via judicial review.

I am also losing patience with this blasted procedure. There were many many complaints about how certain things were done in DG3 but no one seems to want to talk about those issues, make decisions and move on.

The major point of this constitutional article is whether we will always have elected officials or whether we will some times have appointed officials. The *fixed term* thing is secondary, and one we all agree on anyway (even if we do not agree what the actual term should be).

I am more than a bit because we may well end up not using the phrase officers empowered to post game play instructions. No matter whether we decide to have appointments or not I think this phrase should be in the constitution in stead of *leader* or just plain *office*. Tying things to the posting of game play instructions will narrow the scope of future judicial reviews.

 

[Cyc]

quoting donsig:
The major point of this constitutional article is whether we will always have elected officials or whether we will some times have appointed officials. The *fixed term* thing is secondary, and one we all agree on anyway (even if we do not agree what the actual term should be).

I disagree with this statement donsig. First of all, thr leading option in the poll (#4) states - "Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law." This is one complete idea. During each monthly election, the full citizenry will elect a Leader for a Term fixed by Law. Each Month a Leader will be elected by the people to serve for that month. If the people wish to write a Law stating that if the elected Department Leader can not fulfill their duties as Leader, wether by resignation or impeachment, then this causes a situation for which the President must step in and appoint a new Department Leader. If this new Department Leader were to have to be elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law, then this new Leader may have to serve for a month (not a good thing).
My point being that a Leader for that Term was elected by the full citizenry for a Term fixed by Law. But because the Leader of that Department (elected by the people) could not perform his duties, a new situation evolved. One that can not appropriately be stated in an Article of the Constitution. That's why we're going to have the CoL and the CoS. So we don't have to abide by vague Articles that point us in the general direction. You tried that in DG3. Now we're trying to fix that, and you claim we're not. We are, the thing that is holding us up is people whining about things that will eventually be taken care of. They don't have to be detailed in the Constitution.

 

[donsig]

Cyc, my great friend, while your reasoning is not flawed it is not the only reasonable interpretation of the article you cite. As I pointed out in another thread I would reasonably interpret the article to make appointments unconstitutional - and this would include and laws in the CoL that called for appointments. So, by refusing to address the issue of appointments in a straight forward manner (discussion and polling) and then writing this article we are leaving the door open for future judicial reviews that will entangle our country in the election versus appointment question.

By answering this general question once and for all we can write the article accordingly and when the time comes write the appropriate rules in the CoL.

I still do not see the PROBLEM in making this decision now.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
I still do not see the PROBLEM in making this decision now.

You're trying to declare open season on the problems that ought to be addressed in the lower books. BUT, you only what those topics near and dear to your heart, regardless of the preference by the majority.

We have a rather long list of things to get through - it's rather tiresome to continually see your efforts to distract and delay issues where there is a preference for something you don't like. Your continual complaint about things being ignored or won't be discussed is ridiculous and demeaning.

It is very true that we are all free to speak, and open topics as we feel. Most of us have managed to restrain ourselves and work within a set of boundaries to make this process go in a (relatively) smooth manner. The more side issues that are brought up, the more difficult the process is.

donsig, I'm asking you to stop avoiding the issues by diverting attention to side issues and minutia.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by ravensfire

donsig, I'm asking you to stop avoiding the issues by diverting attention to side issues and minutia.

-- Ravensfire

How in heaven's name am I avoiding the issues? I'm the saying let's address this issue now. Has it occurred to any of you that by addressing this general issue now, while we are writing the constitution, that we will not have to adress it later when we write the specifics of the CoL?

Are you all saying that the answer to the question posted in this thread is obvious? If it is I'd sure like to know what that answer is!

BTW, Ravensfire, are you for or against appointments?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by FortyJ
DZ...



Just because an official runs unopposed, does not mean that he or she is not an elected official. Period. This is not an issue of semantics, nor perception. A candidate that runs for office against nobody is elected by default, thus becoming an elected official.

There is no "None of the Above" candidate (a la Brewster's Millions) and Abstain is not an option during elections. If nobody else accepts a nomination, the one poor sap that did is essentially elected by acclamation and is due all the rights and privileges of those that actually had to suffer through a poll.

Please, for the love of God, can we all just stop nitpicking every single word in these laws so that we might, just might have a chance of getting through the Constitution, Code of Laws and Code of Standards sometime this decade?

EDIT: Sorry for the venting. It was not intended to be directed at you, or anyone specifically for that matter. It is just that I am rapidly losing all patience for this process and I fear that what little good we may gain from these ammendments may be grossly overshadowed by the harm we do to our efforts to increase participation.

Geez, Forty........last time I ever try throwing something out there for the sake of irony. For the record, I couldn't care less about uncontested elections.

I too have grown tired of the process, although with the Constitution a little bit of nitpicking goes along way. I would rather we deal with these unpleasantries now, before I send out the big invite to the masses in mid-December.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

As much as I hate to admit it, I am starting to see donsig's reasoning. If we ignore this now, and then bring up appointments later, I can promise the same scenario we are experiencing now.

While this poll continues, I would like us to discuss what we really want regarding appointments. Please post a quick synopsis of your views, and then please participate in the poll that follows.

Appointments

If the Appointment poll comes up in favor of allowing apointments, we will need to ensure that the Article we select in this poll will allow that option without issue.

I know that this is a pain, but let's take care of this now. Thank you.

 

[Cyc]

And which of the above options would you suggest coincides with a poll allowing appointments, DZ? Hmm? Obviously you disagree with my statement in Post #9 of this thread.

As far as appointments go, you know how I feel. I would say that promoting the deputies to Leader position is unconstitutional if appointments are not allowed because of the stipulation of Leaders being elected only. Regardless of what the quick fix the Judicial system gave in DG3 says (when we had to go to the Judicial system because we had no guidance), the deputy ran for a Leader position and lost. Therefore he was not elected as a Leader. Therefore a new election must be held in order to fill any vacant spot in the Council or for a Governor. There is no other way around it. If we are going to forbid appointments on the wording of an Article because some people don't like the idea, then we will also have to forbid the promotion of deputies to a Leader position.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Cyc, after reading your post again, I can see how we can make things work with Option 4, but I can also see how it can put the kibosh on appointments altogether under certain conditions(ie donsig as Chief Justice? ).

My reason for allowing this side poll is so we can resolve this issue for Constitutional purposes and move on. If we decide we want appointments, I believe that donsig will accept this and drop his arguments regarding the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily mean that he will not make another stand during CoL talks, of course, but we will at least get to those talks knowing that we have drafted the best Article to facilitate an appointment process. If we decide we don't want appointments then several of these poll options will work, including the current winner.

Our future sanity is at stake if we don't revisit this. Let's take the extra time and do this right.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc
And which of the above options would you suggest coincides with a poll allowing appointments, DZ? Hmm? Obviously you disagree with my statement in Post #9 of this thread.

As far as appointments go, you know how I feel. I would say that promoting the deputies to Leader position is unconstitutional if appointments are not allowed because of the stipulation of Leaders being elected only. Regardless of what the quick fix the Judicial system gave in DG3 says (when we had to go to the Judicial system because we had no guidance), the deputy ran for a Leader position and lost. Therefore he was not elected as a Leader. Therefore a new election must be held in order to fill any vacant spot in the Council or for a Governor. There is no other way around it. If we are going to forbid appointments on the wording of an Article because some people don't like the idea, then we will also have to forbid the promotion of deputies to a Leader position.

Well, Cyc old pal, we could put that dirty word (deputy) into the constitution very easily in order to provide needed guidance where they are concerned. Yes, I am against using appointments. All I ask is that we discuss the issue, poll it and write the constitutional article to explicitly reflect what is decided in the poll. I ask this so we can avoid having to rely later on a judicial ruling. Rather than stonewalling things Cyc you should be telling us why appointments are good things. Convince enough people and you will get a constitutional article that mandates them.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

If we decide we want appointments, I believe that donsig will accept this and drop his arguments regarding the Constitution. That doesn't necessarily mean that he will not make another stand during CoL talks...

If we decide we want appointments then I will not only accept the majority decision I will help you all craft a constitutional article that even Chief Justice donsig could not get around.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

There you go, Cyc. Straight from donsig himself.

......and that wasn't even planned.

 

[donsig]

Dear Mr. Mod,

Is this poll voided? You closed the appointment poll thread and in so doing stated appointments may or may not make it into the CoL but article would be drafted accordingly. If we are to re-write article G here is my proposal:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. Midterm vacancies are to be filled by Presidential appointment.