1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Deputies

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Demo Game: Polls' started by Alphawolf, Nov 15, 2005.

?

How should deputies be appointed/elected?

Poll closed Nov 21, 2005.
  1. Deputies should be elected in their own election.

    2 vote(s)
    5.0%
  2. The runner-up in an election should be the Deputy.

    17 vote(s)
    42.5%
  3. The Deputy is appointed.

    15 vote(s)
    37.5%
  4. A combination of appointment and election. (Please Post)

    4 vote(s)
    10.0%
  5. There should not be Deputies.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  6. None of these.

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  7. You don't speak this language/Abstain

    2 vote(s)
    5.0%
  1. Alphawolf

    Alphawolf Basileus, Founding Father

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Nashville, Tennessee
    How should deputies be appointed/elected? Any please post your opinions.

    Informational (non-binding)

    -the Wolf
     
  2. Alphawolf

    Alphawolf Basileus, Founding Father

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Nashville, Tennessee
    I went with combination as you can see HERE. Deputies in national offices should be the runner up and Governors should appoint their own deputies.

    -the Wolf
     
  3. Knightlancer

    Knightlancer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    51
    Location:
    In Hawaii
    I agree that it should be a combination of election and appointment.

    -KL
     
  4. CivGeneral

    CivGeneral Valkyrie Grand General

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,372
    Location:
    Solitude, Republic of Nova Terra
    This one I am automaticly going to vote for and support that deputies should be the ones who obtain a second place standing in the elections, the only exception to this is if the canidate wins uncontested then he or she can apoint a deputy so long as the canidate wins an uncontested election. Apointments of deputies just creates favortism.
     
  5. RoboPig

    RoboPig Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Messages:
    2,640
    and no conflicting opinion either
     
  6. Gloriana

    Gloriana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I say the runner-up should become deputy, uncontested election or no.
     
  7. greekguy

    greekguy Missed the Boat

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    4,386
    Location:
    New Jersey, USA
    Runner-up in an election should be deputy. This is the fairest way to decide.

    If a race is uncontested, that means only 1 person is running. If 1 person is running, then there is no runner-up. ;)
     
  8. RegentMan

    RegentMan Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 7, 2003
    Messages:
    6,951
    Location:
    Washington State
    Appointment of deputies. Some say this creates favoritism (hogwash) but it also stops people who just accept their nomination for acceptance's sake from coming into power.
     
  9. CivGeneral

    CivGeneral Valkyrie Grand General

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2002
    Messages:
    42,372
    Location:
    Solitude, Republic of Nova Terra
    Actualy, the difference between contested and uncontested election is that: Contested elections have two or more canidates running while an uncontested election only has one person running.
     
  10. Pegasus_wings

    Pegasus_wings Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2005
    Messages:
    25
    Location:
    Greenville SC
    I think the runner up should always be the deputy.
     
  11. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    The deputy should be appointed. Why should an election winner be forced to choose his electoral adversary to be his assistant? This is a poor outcome for both parties involved. In most instances, the winning candidate will choose the runner-up from his own accord, especially if that person is a newcomer that didn't get a fair shake at the polls. However, the winner should not be forced to do this by law.

    Appointments lead to elitism? Hardly. But a runner-up deputy mandate leads to unrepresentative democracy. We want political parties, but now we wish to force them to work together? Make up your minds, people! :rolleyes:

    EDIT: Why aren't these polls public? :)
     
  12. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I agree, its better to have a deputy and minister to work together, not creating wars against each other...

    Also public polls are preferred...
     
  13. Alphawolf

    Alphawolf Basileus, Founding Father

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Nashville, Tennessee
    Entirely my fault, I forgot to check the little box that makes them public and didn't feel like making another poll. Sorry.:blush: You will notice I remembered that on the other polls I started.

    -the Wolf
     
  14. Man'O'Action

    Man'O'Action Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    66
    I agree with Blackhole and Donovan. This isn't real politics and is therefore not going to be nearly as cutthroat but even so, a leader should be able to have the help of people he trusts and who support him.

    To have the runner up be deputy would be putting a cat and a dog in the same cage and expecting them to suddenly work in harmony.

    Furthermore, to make your opponent your deputy is an easy campaign promise to make, and if that is what the people wanted it would propel you to victory.
     
  15. Gloriana

    Gloriana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Oops sorry, misinterpretation. Thought that uncontested was winning with a difference of more than 10% of the votes...

    Well in that case there's not much else to do than to appoint someone is there?
     
  16. Man'O'Action

    Man'O'Action Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    66
    I know a few people have spoken out with a lot of confidence that they want the deputies to be the runner up, but could someone speak to the logic of it?

    I'm having a hard time wrapping my head around the concept of someone that the majority of the voters do not support being placed in a position of responsibility to help some one that deputy opposes.

    This seems like the antithesis of representational government. At the very, very least they should be elected independently, but somebody that is voted down by the electorate should not be rewarded with a position of responsibility.

    I would like to invite a member of the other side to give some details that speak to their motivation. Gloriana, CivGeneral, you both seem to be in strong support of the idea of loser wins. Can you elaborate a bit on your logic?
     
  17. Alphawolf

    Alphawolf Basileus, Founding Father

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2005
    Messages:
    873
    Location:
    Nashville, Tennessee
    As I've said I'm in the mixed party, which is really the minority. :( So I'll let someone else make an argument in favor of runner-up since I can see it both ways. I'll just make two points.

    These elections will have more than just 2 people running in them, it is rather unlikely that anyone will get a *majority* of votes.

    I think you are seeing these as two canidate races, they are not an election could comeout something like this:
    A got 27.6%
    B got 27.2%
    C got 18.3%
    D got 13.9%
    E got 13.0%
    If any one here got voted down it was D and E, B simply did not receive as man votes as A. Also it's not the antithesis of representational government if this is what the represented wants. ;)

    -the Wolf
     
  18. Gloriana

    Gloriana Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 7, 2005
    Messages:
    118
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    I don't see your point here Man O'Action. If we take Alpha's example here again:

    A got 27.6%
    B got 27.2%
    C got 18.3%
    D got 13.9%
    E got 13.0%

    Then B certainly isn't voted down, nor is he the loser. He is the one supported most for the position concerned after A, so that makes him the best man for the job.

    Of course you could take this a step further by taking ANOTHER vote for deputies, which could easily change the outcome as all the people that voted for A can now vote for someone else, but I think the results from the first vote are strong enough not to have to take another vote. Also, it would seriously slow the game down as you can only have deputy elections AFTER all ministers have been decided on.

    In case there are only 2 people running for office, it doesn't make sense to have deputy elections either since there will be only 1 participant, barring some unlikely cases perhaps.

    So there's my argumentation for my pro runner-up vote.
     
  19. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Personally, I've seen a lot of DG elections. I totally understand CG's point of view, but I think appointed Deputies are the best way to go. Simply because the Deputy is the elected officials right hand man and should be hand-picked, not forced upon the official.

    One thing to consider is that almost all candidates in an election will have the same point of view or approach to solving the problem. So there may not be any problem with the flow of ideas between candidates. But sometimes the method to the means varies a little too much.

    Another thing is, personally, I've never lost an election, but if I had, would I want to be the Deputy. Probably not. Why create a law that forces me to be a Deputy, so I have to refuse and cause the President (or whoever) to take the extra time to fill the position because of my action?

    The reasons go on and on, but you'd probably have to witness 6 or seven DGs to pick up all the small points. Appointing Deputies is the easiest way to go.
     
  20. Man'O'Action

    Man'O'Action Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2005
    Messages:
    66
    Appointments would speed things up. :)

    At any rate, You are correct that I am envisioning a run-off election if somebody gets less than a substantial chunk of the vote. In a wide open electoral field the vote is likely to be split by two like minded candidates. The obvious example is below.

    1> Jim (Anti-War Platform) = 31%
    2> Frank (Anti-War Platform) = 29%
    3> Bill (Pro-War Platform) = 40%

    Bill isn't supported by the majority of the people but he is now the leader, worse yet he will spend his term bickering and fighting against his own deputy Jim that doesn't support the war that Bill is taking us to.

    Obviously, this example is somewhat contrived, but it still illustrates my point of the danger of not having a unified leadership, and not having run-off elections.

    I'm not even arguing for a majority but I think at least 45% of the people should support our leadership and that our leadership should be able to act decisively and without internal conflict.
     

Share This Page