COS J.1.D citizen proposal

[Raven1er]

This proposal is based on Zorven's. (thank you)

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.

Here is what the Judiciary officials will review:

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.

What i counter-propose, based on CivGeneral, Peri and Octavian X's ideas

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.


Feel free to discuss.


EDIT: added three new things to J.1.D. counter-proposal.

 

[Strider]

Much better than Zorvan's orginal proposal

Also, glad to see you active again.

 

[Raven1er]

thanks

yup, i might run this demogame or the next- i need to get my bearings again.

btw i added three new things to my proposal.

 

[Chieftess]

And that's the reason I voted no on the other proposed one. I agree with this one.

 

[Raven1er]

well it took me half the night. thanks!

 

[GenMarshall]

Glad to see an old freind come back to the Demogame .

Looks better than Zorven's proposal, and utalizes the rule found in the late DG1 and DG2 .

 

[Raven1er]

Yeah ill be active around term 3.

Basically im trying to come up with a compromise between the two sides since i agree with both.

 

[ravensfire]

Personally - I still don't see the reasoning behind allowing multiple accepted nominations per election cycle. To often we have the SAME person getting elected to multiple offices - this is counter-productive - as the votes of the citizens are thrown away in this case.

Also, your proposal will fail the same test as the old J.1.d proposal did. zorven's proposal, which yours in based on, is based on the old J.1.d, except zorven's proposal restricts the number of acceptances to one. This restriction removed the conflict with the Article H of the Constitution.

Although I strongly dislike multiple nominations, I will suggest a wording change to prevent a possible challenge should it be adopted. Change J.1.d.3 to:

If a citizen declines an office they are elected to, the citizen receiving the highest number of votes and was not elected to any other office shall be considered the winner of the election.

I will also note, due to the extremely precise nature of legal challenges made this year, that the definition of the "winner" of an election is made in the Code of Laws. It might be better to place J.1.d.3 as a clause of that law.

While I'm not in favor of this idea - I am glad to see another citizen that responds to something they don't like in a constructive manner. Good luck!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Raven1er]

i'll change it.

i was having trouble trying to clarify it.

 

[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. If a citizen declines an office they are elected to, 
       the citizen receiving the highest number of votes and 
      was not elected to any other office shall be considered
      the winner of the election.    
    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.

Because of the content of ravensfire edited #3, which i have taken into consideration and agree with, the above code is my final proposal. unless i have gotten enough support? in need clarification on how many supporters you need.

 

[ravensfire]

Raven1er,

For right now, I would suggest waiting. A new process has been approved for the Term 3 election. Let's allow the election to proceed, and see how that process works. We'll then have for information about elections, and can make a good decision about which way to go.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

Originally posted by Raven1er
Because of the content of ravensfire edited #3, which i have taken into consideration and agree with, the above code is my final proposal. unless i have gotten enough support? in need clarification on how many supporters you need.

Well you have my full support to this proposal . This should be a good compromise between the two parties .

 

[Raven1er]

ravensfire- ok, i'll wait
CG- thanks =)