Constitution Discussion : Article G, Elections, Deputies, and Vacancies

[Sarevok]

I would understand on sacking a deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions if the leader asked the deputy. But what if the deputy had a good reason for not posting the instructions such as an emergency medical duties in his/her family. I personaly dont want to sack the deputy if he/she failed to post the instructions once with an excuse. Personaly, I am a forgiving persion and would give the deputy two chances so long as there is a reasonable excuse.

I also fear that sacking deputies would be used for the wrong reasons for just getting rid of a deputy dispite what happened in the past (The attempt to sack me as Lt Govnenor at the start of the Elections). As I said before, I am a forgiving persion and will give a persion a chance in every turn to redeam him/herself. I personaly dont want to sack my deputy because of his/her past of not doing a good job. If he/she is going to commit to doing a good job and redeam themselves, I would give them a chance.

I think when It comes to sacking there must be a just cause to the sack. "I dont like them" is not a just cause. Naturally, if the deputy cannot do their job doe to real-life issues then they are excused. However, if they are able to do the instructions, are asked to do them and yet do not.... then there should be an option sent to the President asking if the deputy can be sakced and replaced by someone appointed by the President or if the President allows it, the Minister themself.

 

[GenMarshall]

I wish to thank Sarevok for getting back on topic.

Anyway, Back on track.

If the option to be sent to the president or if the president allows the minister to sack the deputy. There should be a system of checks and ballances so that this power to sack deputies is not to be abused.

I would suggest two options.
1. A council vote where all of the ministers vote on the sacking of the deputy in question
2. A Public Poll where the citizens vote on the sacking of the deputy in question (Simmiler to the leader removal poll that we have currently)

Oviously only one of the options would be used so I decided to just throw out into the open the solutions on the preventive measure on the abuse of power on sacking deputies.

 

[Sarevok]

I think that option 2 is the best option.

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to settle this with several polls, then we can write the article using the results of the polls.

Should we have deputies? yes/no/abstain

How should deputies be chosen?

• runner-up in election
• leader appoints
• edit: runner-up in election, but leader allowed to appoint someone instead
• "running mate" -- leader and deputy elected as a team
• separate election
• other
• abstain

Should people be allowed to fill more than one office?
Cumulative voting -- if all "YES" options add up to more than "NO" option, then yes option with highest vote total wins. If no exceeds all YES combined, then no multiple offices.

• Yes - 1 leader and 1 deputy position
• Yes - 1 leader, 1 deputy in different branch (governors treated as legislative for the purposes of divisions)
• Yes - any combination except president and chief justice
• No
• Abstain

Any comments on this plan?

 

[Noldodan]

Dave, your "how should deputies be chosen" poll lacks my suggestion.

 

[DaveShack]

Dave, your "how should deputies be chosen" poll lacks my suggestion.

OK, I edited in this alternative.

 

[GenMarshall]

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.

 

[Sarevok]

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.

Indeed it did.

 

[Epimethius]

But then, so did the poll on the 5CC, and its supporters brought that back twice.

 

[Black_Hole]

But then, so did the poll on the 5CC, and its supporters brought that back twice.

once! and that was becasue it was in the list of variants

 

[DaveShack]

Umm DaveShack, the poll for deputies being selected have already been passed in favor of the "Runner-Up" system.

I overlooked that poll, thanks for pointing it out. It's simple enough to write the final draft of the constitution taking into account that poll, and then if enough people are against it to stop ratification we can come back to the issue.

 

[Sarevok]

I overlooked that poll, thanks for pointing it out. It's simple enough to write the final draft of the constitution taking into account that poll, and then if enough people are against it to stop ratification we can come back to the issue.

but what about polling the other issues?

 

[GenMarshall]

but what about polling the other issues?

The "Should people be allowed to fill more than one office?" has not been written into the polls yet. I beleve that is one of the "other" issues regarding the consitution in this section of the constitution.

 

[DaveShack]

No comments against polling some "other issues", so I'll go do that now.

 

[gert-janl]

We should also poll whether citizens are allowed to participate in more than one election.

 

[GenMarshall]

I beleve we should. There were variations of this rule since the days of DG 1.
Here are the options I suggest for the polls.

• Unlimited
• Limited but more than 1 (Set amount to be decided on a later Poll)
• A citizen should be in 1 election
• Abstain

 

[Sarevok]

I beleve we should. There were variations of this rule since the days of DG 1.
Here are the options I suggest for the polls.

• Unlimited
• Limited but more than 1 (Set amount to be decided on a later Poll)
• A citizen should be in 1 election
• Abstain

sounds good, get it set up.