Citizen Pulse: Deputies

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

runner up. look at fier and me. if our ministers had to appoint people, the culture and science departments would be sitting doing nothing right now. instead, we're doing things for our bosses while they're on vacation.

 

[Fier Canadien]

runner up. look at fier and me. if our ministers had to appoint people, the culture and science departments would be sitting doing nothing right now. instead, we're doing things for our bosses while they're on vacation.

True. But 75% of the time, the deputy job does nothing at all, exept having a tad more worth for decisions by the minister.

( I remember the time of DG3, when I was Governor of Caelian, Deputy Governor of Quarinal and Mayor of Alqualondë. Now, that was some great time.)

 

[Cyc]

Personally, I believe the Boss should appoint his assistant, in other words the Department Leader should appoint the Deputy. But as our electoral process can sometimes be a mess, or just plain catch a snag somehow, I believe we should have it so that the runner-up is the Deputy until the Leader officially appoints one.

I voted for option 2.

 

[Provolution]

I agreee with 100 % with Cyc here.

Personally, Bootstoots is a fine deputy, and I will keep him as long as he is faithful to the policies I was elected for.

 

[Noldodan]

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

 

[Provolution]

Again, Noldodan is one of the wiser people we have on board, people should listen to him more. And yes, I read about Tao, and I am not him.

I agree on the runner up deputy until another is appointment

Slogan

Disappointment leads to Appointment, Runner Up or Runner Out

 

[GenMarshall]

I personaly realy dont like the idea of appointing deputy nor the idea of having this proposed "runner up deputy untill another is appointed". In general, I am against apointing deputies after the elections if there are 2 or more canidates. I find the accepable practace of appointing deputies is if the minister runs unapposed or if the deputy leaves for a very long absence due to RL situations.

Personaly, I feel that the runner-up deputies should be practaced and should be used, I would agree with Stuck on this manner.

 

[Provolution]

Again

I am happy with SAAM you civ general and bootstoots, and I think none will be replaced.
Yet, if my foreign affair deputy trades away iron in my absence, that will most certainly lead to a new appointment if legally allowed. The idea is to let the public get what they voted on, not the adverse solution.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

I truly believe that we should have either or, but not this idea. I really don't like the thought of some deputies being selectively dumped, while others are retained. The process needs to be static, and I would prefer our current model to this proposal.

As evidenced by myself and CivGeneral's posts, this solution would not appease either side of this issue. But I personally appreciate the suggestion, Noldodan, as it was an attempt at compromise.

 

[Cyc]

Alas, my proposal has never been polled, despite support in the past... It's this: The runner-up is the deputy until the winner appoints someone. The proposal has the best of both things, the speed of runner-up, and the fairness of appointing.

EDIT: Crosspost with cyc. Did you get that idea from when I posted it previously, or did you think it up yourself?

Not that it matters to me Noldo, but i believe we came up with the idea at around the same time in different threads. You can take the credit if you'd like.

DZ, I still disagree with you on this point. It's fair, it's efficient, and it makes for solid Leadership.

 

[Provolution]

DZ

Do not forget that the runner up may or may not have another policy platform.
I will surely make my deputy agree on certain things in my absence.
The minister must be able to rely on a team that follows the same program as promised in the elections, or the elections are not that important.

 

[Noldodan]

Not that it matters to me Noldo, but i believe we came up with the idea at around the same time in different threads.

Huh. I guess great minds do think alike... not that that applies to either of us.

 

[Bobby Lee]

i voted other, so here goes...

When a minister runs for office he should be required to announce BEFORE the election who his deputy will be. Thus they should run in pairs. This should work the same way for the Pres. and VP...though I will say I would simply like it to better spelled out than not spelled out well at all, even if it goes some way i dont like.

 

[Fier Canadien]

i voted other, so here goes...

When a minister runs for office he should be required to announce BEFORE the election who his deputy will be. Thus they should run in pairs. This should work the same way for the Pres. and VP...though I will say I would simply like it to better spelled out than not spelled out well at all, even if it goes some way i dont like.

I'm afraid that his will be tagged as 'block voting', and is thus moderator-unfriendly.

Anyway, in DG 1, 2 and 3, we had the runner-up getting the Deputy position, and it has worked well. Why would we change when the DG4 nomination model has been called 'unfair'?

 

[Comnenus]

It seems EVERYONE complains about this or that being undemocratic, and yet, a sizeable number of citizens want the Deputy to be appointed rather than elected. That doesn't sound very democratic to me. It sounds like support of cronyism. Certainly, the runnerup did not receive the most votes, that's why they're called the runnerup. But they did receive VOTES. I don't understand why some people can't see that. If the Deputy positions go to the 2nd place VOTE getter in an election, then I submit that they HAVE been elected.

 

[mhcarver]

I like the Idea of appointing the deputies because like someone said Earlier It would be like Gore becoming VP of Bush or Mcgovern becoming Nixons VP,And I like Nolodans Idea but I think there has to be a deadline to appoint your own deputy as to make sure that a deputy doesn't get jettisoned in the middle of the month for some reason.

 

[GenMarshall]

I'm afraid that his will be tagged as 'block voting', and is thus moderator-unfriendly.

Anyway, in DG 1, 2 and 3, we had the runner-up getting the Deputy position, and it has worked well. Why would we change when the DG4 nomination model has been called 'unfair'?

I would agree with you on that Fier. We should not change something that has been working for the past 3 demogames. As the old saying goes, If it aint broke, dont fix it. I for one am still dead set for deputies being the runner-ups in the elections. And I am dead set against appointing deputies (Exception is if the Canidate win unapposed), I for one dislike the idea of appointing deputies is that it forces the losers to scramble to search for a deputy job. Demogame 4 was a dog-eat-dog when it comes to appointing deputies. Demogame 1-3 was more laid back in that there was a security knowing that the deputies are selected by a runner-up in elections.

Again as I pointed out, there was a poll before the start of the demogame regarding deputies and the result came out "Runner-Up in elections are automadicly deputies" (I dont remember the exact wording on the poll choice) as the winner. I beleve that we should stick to that choice.

 

[TimBentley]

Why should the runner up get the position? The runnerup is the first lose (no offense here) so why would he/she get a deputy position? Ministers need to be able to pick their own staff so they can run their portion of the gov smoothly. This would be like having Bush being pres and Gore being VP, not a very good idea.

This makes me think of American history. The vice president was originally the runner up in the presidental race. This was used because there were (for a very short time) no political parties and they were not wanted. In 1796 (unsure about the year), John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, members of the opposing parties, became president and vice president. Of course, we don't have political parties, so this should not be an issue. This probably doesn't affect how we should elect deputies, however. Regardless, I shall go with the runner-up, especially based on the participation in the first elections of this demogame.

 

[KCCrusader]

Yuck. Equally split.

This makes me think of American history. The vice president was originally the runner up in the presidental race. This was used because there were (for a very short time) no political parties and they were not wanted. In 1796 (unsure about the year), John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, members of the opposing parties, became president and vice president. Of course, we don't have political parties, so this should not be an issue. This probably doesn't affect how we should elect deputies, however. Regardless, I shall go with the runner-up, especially based on the participation in the first elections of this demogame.

Our President and Vice President don't make most of the decisions like the Leaders of the USA did in the early years of the Constitution. Here everything is up for vote so it doesnt matter

 

[Comnenus]

Yuck. Equally split.



Our President and Vice President don't make most of the decisions like the Leaders of the USA did in the early years of the Constitution. Here everything is up for vote so it doesnt matter

My God! No wonder the Greeks kept vacillating between despotism and democracy!