CoS Amendment: Judicial Election Process

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by zorven


The same could be said of Governors. Say there are 3 provinces. A citizen can only run for one of them. If they lose, the are robbed of being governor. Do you propose that we scrap how we do elections for governors?

Well, actually, that is how we will be electing them once we divide our nation into provinces. Also, I just listed this as a suggestion, but as you can see from the rest of that paragraph, it would not be my first choice.

Heheheh. Combative. Come on DZ. We have known each other since you came aboard the Demogame. If you remember, you used to work for me in the RPG. I was your first employer here. We have been discussing policies for longer than most people have been here. I am not fighting you. We are debating.

This is a Democracy Game. A game in which different ideas and policies are debated to come up with the most appropriate solution. Some debates are hotly contested, but that doesn't mean people are fighting. It means they believe in their solution and want to express their opinions of it.

I also realize that it's easy not to see things that other people can point out, just as it can be easy to only see some people's side of an arguement. That's the nature of politics, and this is a political game. No hard feelings, big guy.

None here either, Cyc. You can take note of the (somewhat)olive branch that I left you over in the new election thread last nite. I am assuming that you have already read it and chose not to respond. And by combative, I do not refer to your talks with me, but several other instances with others during the discussions. You have no idea how hard it is for me to not support your candidacy.

BTW, it is now 4-1 for changing the current process.

 

[ravensfire]

zorven,

I would differentiate between Judicial and Guberantorial elections. Although there is some difference between the CJ and AJ positions, generally it's just paperwork.

The provinces, however, now there are some interesting differences. Cities, production capacity, foreign borders, infrastructure, all of these combine to create a unique set of challenges for each province. Our election laws restrict a citizen to participating in the election for only one province, forcing them to choose which set of challenges they feel most qualified to face. During the debates, this process also citizens to tailor their questions for each province.

DaveShack - I quite like your idea. I'm not totally sure of the best way to impliment it though. Perhaps eryei would be willing to have the votes PM'd to him, and post a running total of the votes. This would allow DZ to take an active role in the campaign for the Judiciary without any hint of impropriety. Of course, this does assume eryei being both willing to participate in such a system, and take a passive role in Judicial elections.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

We've had a post saying that it is possible for the mods to verify individual votes in a multi-choice poll, to ensure the stated maximum number of boxes checked is not exceeded. Votes in violation of the poll requirements can be excluded.

Assuming this is accurate, the only real argument against multi-choice in my mind is removed. If all valid votes can be guaranteed to only include the number of choices equal to or less than the number of positions, then this is logically the perfect way to go.

As such, here is a proposed amendment to [which body of law?]

[edit]Had to feed the baby and didn't get back to this tonight...[/edit]
[post the old text here]

[post the new text here]

Any discussion on the concrete proposal? We have strong positions stated on both sides, it is nearing the time to let the people decide in a poll.

<will locate the actual law and edit in the actual change>

 

[ravensfire]

Dave,

Your modifications would be in the Code of Standards, probably III.D.1 in the Judiciary section.

NOTE: As we continue through the Ratification process, I am consolidating and reformatting the ratified laws to produce a single document, consistently formatted. NO wording is changed. As a book completes, I am forwarding it to DZ for eventual posting. This process may result in changes to the numbering of various laws. I ask all citizens to take this in mind, and recognize that, until the final format is complete, there will be slight changes in numbering.

Thanks,
-- Ravensfire

 

[FortyJ]

DaveShack is correct in that the current system for electing both the Justices and the Governors is flawed. They do serve their respective purposes, but they could be handled better.

Donovan Zoi has suggested conducting a multi-select poll that shall be closely monitored by a site moderator to ensure nobody votes for more than the allowed number of candidates (presently 3). I think this is a step in the right direction, but I would suggest that it goes a bit too far to an extreme needed to solve this problem.

I would suggest that we simply employ a multi-select poll listing all the candidates and inform everyone of how many candidates will be elected (ie. 3 Justices with the top vote-getter becoming CJ, or 5 Senators, etc.).

There is no need to moderate this poll.

Consider this: if you have the ability to vote for all candidates, and do so, who's cause have you helped? No one's. You have essentially thrown your vote away. On the other hand, if you only vote for one individual (or even a small few), then you have significantly helped that person's cause. The more votes you cast, the weaker the effect you will have on the outcome. Foolish citizens that vote too often in such polls will only end up cancelling their own voices out.

I would structure the laws as follows:

III. Polling
    1. Judiciary exceptions:
      i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
        a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
           only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
      ii. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
        a. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that 
           position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
           the Chief Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.
      iii. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate 
           Justices.
      iv. Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees tied for that
          position shall be listed in the run-off poll to determine who shall
          be the final Associate Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.
    2. At-Large Governors
      i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
         positions.
        a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
           only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
           where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
           cycle.
      ii. The top X candidates, where X is the number of At-Large Governor 
          positions for the election cycle, shall be the At-Large Governors
      iii. Should a tie exist between two or more citizens for the final 
           At-Large Governor position, a run-off poll listing only those
           citizens shall be posted.  This poll shall last for 2 days.

 

[Cyc]

Now FortyJ's plan is one I could get behind. It seems very workable, and it's not so complicated as the others, and doesn't require that Mods constantly check votes throughout the election poll. Maybe some fine tuning on the wording, but the idea as a whole seems to be better than the rest.

 

[dreiche2]

hm, not to limit the maximum number of votes seems to be an interesting idea. I dont see something bad about it at first glance.

but even if the number of votes is limited to three, i think i would prefer the three votes not being ranked (the last meaning that the first vote goes for the CJ etc.). first its less complicated. second, what if the situation is like this:

A gets 6 - 0 - 0 (first vote regarding the CJ etc.)
B gets 0 - 6 - 0
C gets 0 - 0 - 6
D gets 5 - 5 - 5

now if the votes are ranked (i.e. position specific), D wouldnt get anything though he is obviously quite popular... more than C for sure...

it think the multiple-choice-without-rank-system works in particular quite well for the judicial branch, as the three positions basically have the same job.

 

[dreiche2]

oh another note regarding FortyJs law text... when there is a tie for the CJ, there is another poll to decide who wins. But after that the other candidate should then automatically become AJ, shouldnt he?

 

[FortyJ]

dreiche2

There is currently no provision that allows us to post a multi-select poll with a limitation on the number of votes you can cast. It's not programmed to do so. Therefore, in order to do so, we would need to have moderators check the election and remove any votes in which the individual cast more than 3. I dislike this option on a number of levels.

Also, I think it's understood that the runner-up in a run-off election for CJ would be an AJ. It clearly states that the recipient of the 2nd and 3rd most votes gets elected to the AJ positions. A candidate tied for 1st place would presumably meet that criteria.

Finally, to Cyc and all other critics of "my" wording...


Take it up with the original authors. I was merely trying to remain consistent with what they originally put forward and was recently ratified.

 

[Cyc]

@ FortyJ Too funny. Let's keep in mind that "the original authors" we're also borrowing from the truly original authors.

 

[dreiche2]

FortyJ:

well, then make no limits to the votes, i still see no problems with that.

about the law text: yes i hope its clear that way, just wanted to be sure. cause if u really wanted to u could understand the "2d" as the "2d" in the first original vote while the tied would both be "1d", you know what i mean?

 

[dreiche2]

so again about the law text, to really be exact it should be added that

-if there is a tie for the CJ, the final appointment of the AJs has to be delayed until the 2 day poll about the CJs is closed
-the looser in this poll is automatically declared 2d. regarding the number of votes, so that only the position of the second AJ has yet to be decided about

all quite common sense, but who knows...

 

[DaveShack]

I don't mind not having a limit on the number of votes, for the reason stated by FortyJ.

The ranked voting was for illustration only -- never wanted it to remain in the final proposal.

I'd say do the minor editing of FortyJ's proposal to make it clear the loser of the runoff for CJ is still an AJ, and add something to deal with 3 or more tied in the 1st poll (runoff amongst all tied, with top 3 vote getters being the 3 justices, top being CJ, runoffs ad nauseum until we get something decisive).

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I honestly thing we are trying to solve a problem that has already been solved in three previous demo games.

There are three positions in the judiciary, and therefore, there should be three different polls for the election. Or, in the alternative, two polls, one for CJ, and one for AJ's with the top two winning.

I am not sure what we think we are gaining by combining this important election poll in terms of time or confusion savings, whereas we have no issue whatsoever with taking an hour or so in preturn to play the game.

No matter the outcome, it is imperative that the CJ election be seperate. The CJ position is critical in this game. I wish that it were not quite so important, but it is (rant on) a reflection of society's attitude today that somehow the courts must solve our problems.(/rant off)

The CJ is the voice of the court, and not only is impartiality a given, but it is also critical that the individual in that position be able to articulate their ideas and reasoning in a way that doesn't necessary convince their detractors, but does clearly illustrate the logic behind the decision.

Therefore a individual election for CJ should remain a priority of ours.

**note, none of the above is an indictment of the current CJ, or any previous CJ's... except for perhaps myself... this demo game has been blessed to have excellent CJ's in the past and present. My aim is to keep it that way.

 

[DaveShack]

Bill,

Your assessment of the importance of the Chief Justice position is 100% on target. The reason we moved away from a PD and JA to two associate justices was to separate the decision making aspect of PIs (now called citizen complaints) from the prosecution and defense roles.

The reason for having a single election rather than separate CJ and AJ elections is to automatically include losers from the CJ election into the mix for AJ. It would be just as easy to have all the CJ candidates who will be satisfied with being AJ to self-nominate into the AJ election.

Unfortunately what we have now is a single choice poll for all positions. It needs to be changed anyway, it's just a matter of what to change it to.

So for further discussion, should we pursue an amendment for a single multi-choice election, or an amendment for separate CJ and AJ elections? (which incidentally switches back to the way it was at the beginning of the term )

I like the ability to specify directly who the CJ should be.

 

[dreiche2]

ok so its either one multiple-choice poll for all three positions or two seperate polls?

in the latter case, the CJ should be decided upon first, so that the candidates can apply for AJ afterwards if they were not elected. do we agree on that?

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by dreiche2
ok so its either one multiple-choice poll for all three positions or two seperate polls?

in the latter case, the CJ should be decided upon first, so that the candidates can apply for AJ afterwards if they were not elected. do we agree on that?

This is the right sentiment, but unfortunately all the elections have to run in parallel. The alternative is to have the CJ candidates also apply for AJ -- someone who wins both polls has to "resign" one of them anyway.

This brings me to an interesting side trip. If the same person wins more than one election, do they enter both offices and then resign one, causing a vacancy which is filled via appointment? My opinion is the right thing to do is let the 2nd place have it, but that's not what the law says.

 

[FortyJ]

There are a few reasons for having a single election for the three (or in the case of the Senate, multiple) positions.

First and foremost, the positions (particularly in the High Court) are essentially the same. They are each vested with the same authority, power and priviledges. No candidate is charged with any specific responsibility (ie. prosecution or defense). They are each charged with deliberating over cases brought before them and rendering a verdict.

Now, certainly some of you are saying "Wait a sec", and granted, the Chief Justice is charged with certain additional duties, but those duties could just as easily be assigned to any member of the court and are therefore not position specific. Assigning them to the Chief Justice is more a housekeeping matter to prevent the justices from fumbling over themselves trying to do the same tasks.

Secondly, dividing the elections into separate polls for each position on the court risks exclusion of qualified candidates and confusion at the polls. With no clear division of power and responsibilities, we would be forced to hold elections for Justice 1, Justice 2 and Justice 3 (one of which would be slated to become Chief Justice).

Should all polls include all the candidates? If so, we run the risk of an individual gaining election in 2 or more polls. We could always take the 2nd place finisher in one of the polls, but what if there is a different second place finisher in each poll? Which one should we choose?

If we divide the candidates between the polls, how shall this be done? On which criteria shall we group the candidates for each poll? Regardless of the criteria used, we run the risk of a competent and desirable candidate failing to win election simply because he or she finished second to an even more desirable candidate - in other words, a victim of poor grouping.

Compare this with the prospect of using a single poll, in which citizens can vote for multiple candidates, and it becomes clear that a consolidated poll, while possibly imperfect, resolves many of the issues created when using multiple polls. By using only one poll, no candidate risks accidental exclusion.

 

[Cyc]

I don't want to rain on anyone's parade, bu you may want to consider CoS Section Y.I.D ~

D. A citizen is limited to accepting no more than 3 nominations in any
election cycle.
1. Each accepted nomination must be in a different branch of Government.
2. The Election Office is responsible for contacting citizens that have
exceeded the limit.
3. Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to the limit, the
Election Office shall interpret the earier acceptances as having
priority over the later in creating the election ballots.

Therefore, I believe FortyJ's proposal would be best.
The candidate would have to be nominated for Chief Justice and accept only that in the Judicial Branch. Associate Justices would be a conolation price.

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

A few counter points:

1) I am not so much concerned with what the law says currently, as we are talking about changing the law anyhow.

2) I think it is very wrong to lump the chief justice in with the associate justices. That is equivalent to saying the President is just the same as the Military Leader, and oh sure, he has some specific additional responsibilities... but really nothing that couldn't be passed on.

If we want all three judiciary members to be the same, then lets do it that way. I am not opposed to that approach at all. But, if we are going to put additional responsibility on one position, then we should have a specific election for that position. I support the idea of having two AJ's selected from one election.

It still seems to me that we are trying a huge work around to something easily solved. Change the law so that it is okay to run for both CJ and AJ in the same election. We had no issue dealing with someone winning two elections in the past, we simply went with second place.

I guess I am missing why we went to all this trouble to change one of the processes that was working from the past. Now we are faced with the difficulties of the new changes.

Smart people did this, so I am sure there are very good reasons for it. I am just not aware of them right now.