DG4 Discussion - Const: Article G

[Cyc]

Appointments aren't "going". Some people just have difficulty realizing the importance of the supporting books.

And you're absolutely correct about all those Leaders we've had that, because of uncontested candidacies, were put into Office with no election. This was done even though it was against the Constitution. (sarcasm) This totally invalidates our first three Demogames! Now we'll have to start over!(/sarcasm) I think this exemplifies my point I was just making to zorven. Things are not always what the seem. If the People see the value of appointments, they will have no problem whatsoever writing them into Law.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

zorven and Cyc, the toe-to-toe of the last few posts is unbecoming of both of you. Let's keep it civil, and a bit more long-winded

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by zorven


Please enlighten me.

Please, zorven. I spend much too much time trying to enlighten donsig. Don't you start on me...

OK, Sorry, DZ!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Cyc

If #4 wins (a little anxious for that one, eh? ), it would allow for the CoL to state in one of its sub sections that if a duly elected Leader was not able to finish their Term, a suitable replacement could be temporarily appointed by the President, to fulfill the duties of said Leader.

If I were on the judiciary I would interpret this to mean that appointments were unconstitutional and I would rule any section of the CoL that dealt with appoitments as unconstitutional.

As you may have guessed by now I am against appointments. I would rather we discuss that issue now, poll it and write the constitution so that it is unambiguous on this issue according to the result of said poll.

 

[ravensfire]

Nothing to see here, please move along ...

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

As a side note, with the weekend coming up, I would like to see several other polls put up, with a planning closing on Monday. As several of the current discussions revolve around preferences of the People, we need to settle them to allow the larger discussion to move on.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Well, the people voted 20-3 in favor of considering appointments in our CoL. This means that we may have to go back to the drawing board on this Article, although we already have two new proposals to choose from.

First is the winner of the Article G poll:

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law

Next, we have donsig's offering(posted in the Article G thread) based on the results of the Appointment poll:

All officers empowered to post game play instructions will be filled via elections to serve fixed terms. Midterm vacancies are to be filled by Presidential appointment.

Two questions:

1. Which one of these will best allow for us to consider appointments?

2. Can either of these be improved upon?

 

[zorven]

To me these two polls are contradictory. How can we require leaders to have been elected and then decide that we want to allow deputies (who can become leaders) to be appointed?

 

[Cyc]

How about this ~

"Each Term, which has a length fixed by Law, the Citizens will bring forth Leaders for the Nation via elections."

This pretty much includes everything that needs to be in the statement, plus by its wording leaves room for midterm vacancies. It also leaves room for a ruling in the CoL as to whether Deputies are classified as Leaders or not. Because midterm vacancies and Deputies are open-ended, appointments can still be allowable while satisfying the prior Constitution's goals. Plus it's close enough to the poll winning option to superceed it without causing major problems.

 

[DaveShack]

I thought we were on the right track with appointments and ratification polls. Maybe the dissenters to that system think the ratificaton poll is too one-sided. A good compromize would be to codify the difference between temporary and permanent, within the limits of a term. For example

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law. A vacant leadership office may be filled temporarily by a person who has not been elected, for a period not to exceed 5 days, as such and only if such procedure may be prescribed by law.

This provides an explicit acknowledgement that temporary appointments are allowed, explicitly limits them to a period which should be sufficient to hold a special election, and requires a lower law to activate the provision for appointments. Hopefully this will satisfy all critics of temporary appointments and we can move on.

 

[Cyc]

But I think a temporary appointment would be a waste of time. Look, someone gets elected and then decides on bailing from the position cause he's found a new love. By the fifth day of the month the citizen get tired of waitng for a response from the absent Leader. They make a plea to the Domestic Leader, who's very busy with his new responsibilities, but says he will PM his good friend and look into the matter. The end of the first week rolls by and the Leader has still not been heard from. A plea is sent out to the President to oust the Leader, and the President agrees that the situation calls for a replacement. Gears are set in motion and by the 10th, the President has ousted the Leader and has set up a temporary replacement for the Leader. This gives him 5 days to find nominees for the position and hold an election. If he is able to do this, he will have a permenent replacement for the position by the 15th (if everything goes according to plan). That's two elections in two weeks for one position. Nominations would take place in 9 days to replace that new Leader. This is way too much work for our system, especially if participation drops (which may be caused by beauracracy like this). Keep in mind that the above scenario took place at the very begining of the Term. What would happen if this scenario took place starting on the 8th of the month? or the 15th? Much too much hassle.

If the President can appoint a permenent replacement (till the end of the Term), then nominations can begin on the 24th to replace him, just as if he had been elected at the begining of the month.

EDIT: Also, your proposed Article (above) is too detailed for an Article. It need only cover the basics, not contingencies. If we were to use something like that, shouldn't we add on to every other Article something about what we should do if something (anything, everything) goes awry with the original statement?

 

[zorven]

How about the following, which gets allows for appointments, but doesn't require them and leaves the details to the CoL.

Leaders shall be elected by the full citizenry for a term fixed by law. Leader positions which become vacant may be filled via an appointment that is confirmed by the full citizenry.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm still in favor of :

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month.

When we create the process by which we fill vacant offices, include something along the lines of ... "This person shall be be subject to the same limitations as if they had been initially elected to this position."

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Unless we specifically state in this article that we are going to use an appointment process to fill vacancies then we will be in the same spot as in DG3. By merely stating that officials must be elected or may be appointed we leave the door open for a judicial review making appointments (or certain appointments) unconstitutional. Remember, if appointments are rendered unconstitutional then it doesn't matter what we put inthe code of laws, appointments would be illegal. The whole point of having the discussion and poll about appointments was to make a general decision on their use. The people decided to use them now let's not waffle on the issue. We can leave the decision for any appointment confirmation process till we do the CoL. But we should explicitly state that we will use appointments to fill vacancies so there will be no doubt later nor any room for constitutional interpretation games to invalidate appointments.

 

[ravensfire]

So how about:

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Define the appointment process in the CoL. The clause creates the terms "Vacant Office" and "Appointments", allowing us to clarify in later books. It also explicitly states that the new office-holder is there only for the remainder of that term.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by ravensfire
So how about:

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Define the appointment process in the CoL. The clause creates the terms "Vacant Office" and "Appointments", allowing us to clarify in later books. It also explicitly states that the new office-holder is there only for the remainder of that term.

-- Ravensfire

This works for me if you change:

All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen

to

All vacant offices shall be filled by appointment of a citizen

 

[ravensfire]

Grammar cop!

 

[donsig]

All elected positions shall have a term of one calendar month. All vacant offices shall be filled by appointing a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.


I do not like this proposal as it mandates one month terms. Let's leave that sort of thing for the CoL. We have used *fixed term* in both the DG2 and DG3 constitutioons and I see no reason to change that now.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Actually, the DG2 Constitution mandated one month terms as well as (gasp) turnchats!

Check it out(G & K)........

Honestly, I don't think that we are going to get halfway through the game and then decide that a turn-based system is the answer for us. Pair that with the fact that turn-based elections lost quite soundly in a recent poll, and you can see why I have no problem with the inclusion of a one calendar month in our Constitution.

However, it is not worth another week of debate. Figure out the best wording, and present two options: One that states calendar month and one that states fixed terms. Do this and we can finally bag Article G.

 

[ravensfire]

DZ,

I will agree with donsig on this - my earlier proposals have all stated *fixed term* without specifics. I'm not concerned about time vs turn, more of the possibilty of allowing some offices to have longer terms.

Therefore, I propose that we adopt the following as Article G.
All elected positions shall have a fixed term. All such vacant positions shall be filled by appointment of a citizen to fulfill the remainder of the term.

Changes:

• Replaced "elected officials" with "elected positions" to remain constant through clause
• Replaced "term of one month" with "fixed term"
• Replaced "appointing" with "appointment of"

To conform with your request, simply undo the first change.

-- Ravensfire