Congress: CoS J.1.d - Accepting Nominations

[GenMarshall]

Delete

 

[Cyc]

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

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

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

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

One citizen, one vote, one election.

-- Ravensfire

I see DaveShack is already caving in...

Before we let you go and pull another illegal act as Chief Justice, ravensfire, why don't you explain to us the exact legal procedure you are going to take to accomplish this task. Please, step by step.

 

[GenMarshall]

I have given this proposal great consideration since my last post. There have been some valid arguments made in favour of it. Although this proposal may affect my own chances of being elected, I think it would be in the best interests of fanatica to give it a try. This proposal would indeed give a better chance to new players and it would also reduce confusion. Even if it does not work out at least we gave it a chance.

I vote Yes

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by Cyc


I see DaveShack is already caving in...

Before we let you go and pull another illegal act as Chief Justice, ravensfire, why don't you explain to us the exact legal procedure you are going to take to accomplish this task. Please, step by step.

Sigh.

Cyc, just for you, so you can follow along:

1. A citizen proposes a law.
2. Discussion on that law ensues.
3. If there appears to be general support for the proposal, a final version of the proposal is generated.
4. Once the final version is created, the Judiciary conducts a Judicial Review of that proposal.
5. If the proposal passes the review, the Chief Justice posts an official poll, listing the text of the proposal, the quorum for the poll, the criteria to pass the proposal and the time limit of the poll.
6. Once the poll is closed, the Chief Justice determines if the proposal has passed or not. If the proposal passes, the Chief Justice posts a request in the Needed Things thread, requesting an update to the laws.

Currently, we're at step 2. I'd like to see this in time for Term 3. I'm not convinced there is enough time however.

My thanks for you usual eloquent comment.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire


Sigh.

Cyc, just for you, so you can follow along:

1. A citizen proposes a law.
2. Discussion on that law ensues.
3. If there appears to be general support for the proposal, a final version of the proposal is generated.
4. Once the final version is created, the Judiciary conducts a Judicial Review of that proposal.
5. If the proposal passes the review, the Chief Justice posts an official poll, listing the text of the proposal, the quorum for the poll, the criteria to pass the proposal and the time limit of the poll.
6. Once the poll is closed, the Chief Justice determines if the proposal has passed or not. If the proposal passes, the Chief Justice posts a request in the Needed Things thread, requesting an update to the laws.

Currently, we're at step 2. I'd like to see this in time for Term 3. I'm not convinced there is enough time however.

My thanks for you usual eloquent comment.

-- Ravensfire

I already know the Law, ravensfire. I just wanted to make sure you did. That's close enough, except for the fact that the final draft needs to be posted for 24 hours before it's put in a poll. You have plenty of time before the elections start. Oh wait a minute, I think someone may have already change the term election to election cycle (or something like that). Uh-oh...could be trouble.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I have given this proposal great consideration since my last post. There have been some valid arguments made in favour of it. Although this proposal may affect my own chances of being elected, I think it would be in the best interests of fanatica to give it a try. This proposal would indeed give a better chance to new players and it would also reduce confusion. Even if it does not work out at least we gave it a chance.

I vote Yes

CG,

Thanks for your words of support. I know you've been a supporter of multiple elections for some time - I'm grateful for you support.

I hope that when we do impliment a single-race limit, you'll have success in your elections! Even if we don't get the single-race limit in for a bit, I hope to see you, and others, limit themselves to a single race, and focus your effort on that election.

Again, thanks for the support CG!

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

From looking at the time available, the one-term proposal will fit under the time frame allowed. Barely.

Even should this proposal fail, I would note that the upcoming election cycle will introduce several changes - please assist other citizens and the Election Office by letting the EO know if you see any issues, or have any concerns.

Passed proposals:
Judicial Election Reformation Act of Term 2
This Act fundamentally changes the structure of Judicial Elections for Fanatica. There will be one poll for the Judicial Election, setup as a multiple-selection poll. All citizens accepting a nomination for the Judiciary will be listed in this poll. Citizens may vote for one, or all candidates. When the poll closes, the nominee with the most votes is the Chief Justice, with the second and third place candidates becoming the Associate Justices. Run-offs polls will be conducted as needed.

This Act also changed the process for At-Large Governors. As with the Judiciary, a single, multiple selection poll listing all accepted candidates is used. Based on the number of At-Large Governor positions available, the candidates receiving the most votes are elected to that position. As of right now, there is only 1 At-Large governor position.

Ruleset Cleanup Act of Term 2
This Act modified the laws to reflect where threads were being posted. Specifically, all election-related threads are now in the main demogame forum.

Nominations are a few days away - start to think about the offices and get involved by running for office and participating in the debates! Citizens of Fanatica - this is your country, this is your chance to make your views heard - use it!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

Originally posted by CivGeneral
I have given this proposal great consideration since my last post. There have been some valid arguments made in favour of it. Although this proposal may affect my own chances of being elected, I think it would be in the best interests of fanatica to give it a try. This proposal would indeed give a better chance to new players and it would also reduce confusion. Even if it does not work out at least we gave it a chance.

I vote Yes

Wow CG I'm impresssed. I am really glad that you have chosen to give your support to this. It really shows that you care more about this game than you do about getting elected yourself.

 

[ravensfire]

The Judiciary will review the following proposal:

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

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[Raven1er]

C.T., CivGeneral and Octavian X: remember the early DGs when one person could run for all seats of power? that was a big mess. I for one think the limit should not be 1- but two. this provides an equal chance of success, should one candidate lose one race but still have the other to look torward to.

example- i run for Foreign and Internal seats. i really want both but cant have both. election rolls around. i lose internal, but i win Foreign. im still happy. (but thats just me!)

Just my 2 cents.


EDIT:

I will be creating a thread on this.

 

[Raven1er]

d.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than two 
      nominations in any election cycle.
    1. The citizen, should he/she accept both nominations,
       will be entitled to run both races.
    2. Should the citizen happen to win both races, 
       the citizen must choose with seat of power he wishes 
       to obtain.  The citizen cannot obtain both seats,
       as prescribed by law.
    3. When the citizen has chosen which seat to obtain,
       the next highest receiver in votes will take the seat
       that the citizen did not choose.
    4. The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
       citizens that have exceeded the limit.
    5. Should the citizen exceed two nominations 
       for any seat of power, the Election office will 
       interpret the first two nominations as the only 
       valid acceptance when creating the election ballots.

"This way, if a person loses one race, he/she still has the other race to look forward to. This provides an fair/equal chance of success to running candidates, especially DG newcomers, while also making sure the candidate runs for what he has his heart/mind set to, to insure that it was not personal interest the citizen was running for- but the need to serve Fanatika."

--Me, based on the posters ideals.

I tried as hard as possible to look at it from both angles. i really support both sides, so i tried to do a little compromising. check it out, and discuss it on my thread if you like.