DG4 Discussion - Const: Article H

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven


My intention (if it wasn't clear) is that you could not hold a leader position and a deputy position. So, your wording would have to include deputies within the leader definition which I think would not be a good idea. I would also rather not mention deputies in this text. Therefore I still think my latest proposal would work best.

Gotcha. I would prefer to see that in the deputy section of the CoL though, not in the Constitution.

I know, I'm wanting to put a lot into the CoL - that's what I feel it should be used for. The Constitution is a broad statement of the rights, duties and powers granted. The lower books of law is where those rights, duties and powers are further defined and limited.

As the source for our laws, the Constitution should give us room to make changes. By keeping things in general terms (the wording in my last post), we can implement just about every idea I've seen posted here, from Cyc's limits to the ones you've proposed. All it would take is a change to the CoL. If we go with my idea, we can even change what's on the list of a "leader" position to include, say, the Executive and Judiciary only, allowing Governors to run for office.

We want the same thing, just have a different view of getting it.

-- Ravensfire

-- Ravensfire

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by ravensfire
I know, I'm wanting to put a lot into the CoL - that's what I feel it should be used for. The Constitution is a broad statement of the rights, duties and powers granted. The lower books of law is where those rights, duties and powers are further defined and limited.

I think that specifying how many positions a citizen can hold is a basic right/restriction that needs to be defined in the Constitution.

Originally posted by ravensfire
As the source for our laws, the Constitution should give us room to make changes. By keeping things in general terms (the wording in my last post), we can implement just about every idea I've seen posted here, from Cyc's limits to the ones you've proposed. All it would take is a change to the CoL. If we go with my idea, we can even change what's on the list of a "leader" position to include, say, the Executive and Judiciary only, allowing Governors to run for office.

I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible. And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution? And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by zorven


I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible.

zorven, what ravensfire is saying is "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time." With this wording, the definition of Leader is the key. If, as he says, we change Governors to a "non-Leader" Title, then a Governor can run for and obtain a Leader position while keeping his Governor position intact.

And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution?

You're right, let's dump the whole thing.

And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

Deputies were not always Leaders, just as Governors were not always Leaders. Definitions change over time depending on the needs of the people who use them. And once a word is defined in the CoL, it will be consistant through all levels of law.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by zorven

I don't see how your wording would allow what Cyc wants. Your wording states "No citizen may hold more than one elected leader position at any one time". Cyc wants you to be able to hold 2 leader positions - completely not compatible. And if you want to be able to use the CoL to make any change to allow for any possibility, why even have a section in the Constitution? And using the CoL to change the definition of a word depending on what section it is in would be a bad idea. Once a word is defined, it should be consistant through all levels of law.

Well, it does. Cyc wants a person to be able to hold one office in each branch. You define one branch (Executive) as the "leader" positions in the CoL. In the election section, you restrict the ability of citizens to either run for more than one office, or hold more than one office.

Splitting hairs - somewhat, but that's what a broad Constitution allows you to do. We give ourselves a platform to stand on with the Constitution, but the details are in the smaller documents. We've got so many concepts laden down with "tradition" that it interferes with how we view things. If you went with a strict definition, DG3 deputies should have been considered elected officials, as you could only be a deputy based on your performance in the voting.

Restrict the right of people to hold a "leader" position, then define what that is. It may be that we go with Executive and Judicial branches as the leader positions. It may be that we go with all three. Either way, we state a term in the Constitution, then define it in the CoL/CoS.

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

Well, the lunacy of this approach is becoming more and more apparent. Is a deputy a leader? Do we want someone to be able to ber on the judiciary and a governor as well? Do we want someone to be able to be governor and president? Governor and domestic leader? Deputy domestic and governor? Deputy military and President? Deputy foreign affairs and chief justice?

Personally, I'm for one person / one elected office. Period.

 

[zorven]

I still want to see a citizen hold only one office within the 3 branches, so I am going to stick to my proposal:

"No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one elected position within the Executive, Legislative, and Judical branches."

(And this would include deputies that get their position by being the runner up in an election.)

 

[donsig]

@zovren: It seems your proposal turns on the phrase *elected position*. I'm troubled by the fact that there are those who will push to fill vacancies through appointments. If they succeed then the door is opened that deputies are not elected positions. I'd not like to see that door opened. Basing this article on the posting of game play instructions may not make much difference but I will offer the suggestion anyway:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Please note that IMHO deputies can post game play instructions in the absence of their leader and justices should be empowered to post game play instructions under certain circumstances.

 

[zorven]

@ donsig: You do point out a valid "potential" loophole in my wording. So, in turn I will point out one in yours : what if we never empower justices or explicitely empower deputies (for those special circumstances)? Then we could end up with justices and deputies not covered by this provision.

 

[donsig]

As I said in the other thread, unless we make some decisions we will end up with a useless article or two.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I am starting to think that we should begin to veer away from the idea of deputies being selected by being the runner-up in a departmental election. Perhaps it is time for a winner-take-all system where the primary vote-getter is the departmental leader, and he then gets to appoint his own deputy.

Hold on donsig, I am not finished..... If for any reason, the leader of a department either resigns or is removed, or is declared absent from office(detailed in the upcoming CoL), the deputy is not automatically entitled to the position. Instead, he would gain temporary control of the office while emergency elections are held, preferably after a 48 hour nomination process. The deputy would be free to run for this position mid-term, as well as anyone else who is nominated. The new winner would then be able to appoint his own deputy and the cycle continues.

I, for one, do not see anything wrong with appointments. Sometimes it is a good way to reward a newcomer more quickly than would be possible on the election trail against the well-knowns. But I do agree with donsig that any leader should be elected by the people, and I believe that this system would satisfy this requirement.

If you don't agree with the emphasis on deputy appointments, we can keep the runner-up deputy basis intact, and still hold mid-term elections for any leader vacancy.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I see no reason for the elected members of the Legislative Branch to be denied "leader" status. I also stand with donsig in opposition to the thought of any citizen holding more than one leadership position in any of the three Branches simultaneously.

This is most evident in regards to the Judiciary, where a conflict of interest could arise should any jurist be charged with wrongdoing from actions taken as leader in another branch. Members of the Judiciary should absolutely never be allowed to hold another leadership position while they are serving on the bench.

In regards to the Legislative Branch, I see this branch evolving into a check and balance against the Executive Branch, especially if we decide that Governors/Senators should be charged with control of the slider. I think giving the Senate veto power(2/3 majority) against certain Executive proposals would add an interesting dynamic to the game. And this could not happen if we allowed citizens to hold a leadership positon in both branches.

Just some ideas on how I see the big picture, which is why I say no to multiple leadership positions.

 

[ravensfire]

Originally posted by donsig
@zovren: It seems your proposal turns on the phrase *elected position*. I'm troubled by the fact that there are those who will push to fill vacancies through appointments. If they succeed then the door is opened that deputies are not elected positions. I'd not like to see that door opened. Basing this article on the posting of game play instructions may not make much difference but I will offer the suggestion anyway:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Please note that IMHO deputies can post game play instructions in the absence of their leader and justices should be empowered to post game play instructions under certain circumstances.

donsig and zorven,

As deputies, and filling offices emptied by resignation or other means will probably be handled in the CoL, would it be acceptable to close these loopholes there?

-- Ravensfire

 

[donsig]

All right folks, let's address this issue. I'm sorry if my tone comes across as flippant but it is iritating to go through this process time and again. This is the third time now for me.

Number one: I am opposed to appointing deputies. Appointed deputies are not elected. The citizens have no control over appointed deputies. If we were to allow leaders to pick their deputies before the election so that the voters knew what they were getting then there's no problem.

Number two: We have to decide the function of our deputies. Throughout the demogames there have been two schools of thought. The first is that deputies are there to wait in the wings and take over should the leader disapear or atherwise abandon the office on a permanent basis. The other school of thought is that the deputy is there fill in on a temporary basis if need be or a permanent basis if need be. I am a proponent of the second school.

It seems to me the key to the entire deputy situation is coming up with explicit regulations as to when a deputy can post game play instructions. If we had a set game play schedule we could do it. We could say that if we get to 24 hours before the start of the scheduled session and there are no instructions from a given leader then his or her deputy can step in and post instructions.

Unless we do something like this deputies will be left in limbo. I never did like the idea of removing officials from office and the process we came up with required at least a weeks worth of absence by a leader before a deputy could step in on a permanent basis. That's about 25 percent of a term. Leaving an office leaderless for that amount of time pretty much makes the whole point of having a deputy moot. We need deputies that can step in quickly to keep the duties of the office going. That is why I want deputies to be elected. I see them as having the potential (on a short notice) to post game play instructions throughout the term.

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by ravensfire

donsig and zorven,

As deputies, and filling offices emptied by resignation or other means will probably be handled in the CoL, would it be acceptable to close these loopholes there?

-- Ravensfire

It depends. Take donsig's proposal:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Now assume that nowhere is the Judicial branch given any power to post game play instructions. I don't think you could then write a law in the CoL that says the Judicial branch members cannot hold other offices because that would contradict the above article in the Constitution.

 

[GenMarshall]

Originaly posted by Donovon Zoi
I left a synopsis of how things could work with appointments and elections, and it pretty much got ignored.

@DZ - Well, I dont want to see your proposal to be ignored .

I would agree that we should allow appointments of deputies. Since this would give a chance for a newbie citizen to get a chance to be in an office. I would like to keep the runner-up deputy basis intact if the leader fails or cannot find a citizen to appoint to as deputy.

 

[DaveShack]

I would prefer to continue using the runner-up as the deputy, but allow a leader without a deputy (as in the case of an uncontested election, or when a deputy resigns, or the deputy takes over the office) appoint one and present that person to the people in a nomination thread followed by a ratification poll. The only difference between this and a special election is that the deputy would be immediately empowered to act in the leaders absense if necessary, where in the special election case there is nobody to fill the office until the election closes.

Another alternative would be to have the president, the senate, or the executive council (assuming we have one) appoint an interim deputy (or even leader) during the special election process.

A third alternative is to give the largely ceremonial VP the ability to fill in for absent leaders, in which case no deputy is needed -- unless you're worried the VP could get god-like status by having all the other leaders resign en-masse...

The more discussion I see, the more I think this needs to be branch specific. Here are some examples which would need further work.

• Members of the judiciary may not hold any other position which is subject to disciplinary action.
• The president may not hold any other position. (I tend to even think the president needs to appoint / recruit interim replacements for any position, even mayor, election office, etc.)
• Governors may not be mayor of a city in a different province
• A leader can be a deputy governor and a governor can be a deputy leader, and either may exercize temporary authority, but cannot be permanently promoted from the deputy position to the primary position without resigning the other office.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I am starting to think that we should begin to veer away from the idea of deputies being selected by being the runner-up in a departmental election. Perhaps it is time for a winner-take-all system where the primary vote-getter is the departmental leader, and he then gets to appoint his own deputy.

Hold on donsig, I am not finished..... If for any reason, the leader of a department either resigns or is removed, or is declared absent from office(detailed in the upcoming CoL), the deputy is not automatically entitled to the position. Instead, he would gain temporary control of the office while emergency elections are held, preferably after a 48 hour nomination process. The deputy would be free to run for this position mid-term, as well as anyone else who is nominated. The new winner would then be able to appoint his own deputy and the cycle continues.

I, for one, do not see anything wrong with appointments. Sometimes it is a good way to reward a newcomer more quickly than would be possible on the election trail against the well-knowns. But I do agree with donsig that any leader should be elected by the people, and I believe that this system would satisfy this requirement.

If you don't agree with the emphasis on deputy appointments, we can keep the runner-up deputy basis intact, and still hold mid-term elections for any leader vacancy.

I like this last idea, that we keep runner-up deputies intact and hold mid-term elections for leader vacancies. I also think that we should give the President power to appoint a pro-tempore leader while nominations and elections are ongoing if both the leader and the deputy positions are vacant. I do favor the idea of mid-term elections over appointments and permanent deputy successions, but I do see the reason that these offices must be filled during the mid-term election process. I do also think that the deputies should be elected rather than appointed, unless the position was unfilled by the election process, where I would favor a leader appointment of a deputy over a special election for deputy.

 

[donsig]

Here is my official proposal for this article:

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions.

Do we have a proposed poll yet?

 

[Bootstoots]

I would vote against that because a member of the Judiciary should not hold any other office, IMO. Just think: What happens if the President is also Judge Advocate? He may well be able to do whatever he wants by dismissing any PI's that get filed against him. Or what happens if somebody wins multiple Judicial offices? What does somebody who is simultaneously JA and PD do during a PI? I would support an article that forbade anybody from holding multiple Leader positions, as it is in the DG2 and DG3 constitutions.

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would vote against that because a member of the Judiciary should not hold any other office, IMO. Just think: What happens if the President is also Judge Advocate? He may well be able to do whatever he wants by dismissing any PI's that get filed against him. Or what happens if somebody wins multiple Judicial offices? What does somebody who is simultaneously JA and PD do during a PI? I would support an article that forbade anybody from holding multiple Leader positions, as it is in the DG2 and DG3 constitutions.

Well, boostoots, I would give justices the power to post game play instructions under certain circumstances (to be determined when we write the CoL). I am not advocating that someone be allowed to be on the judiciary and hold another office at the same time. How about this: if we adopt this wording here we also put a caveat in the judicial article stating that any member of the judiciary cannot hold another office. Or better yet, I will revise my proposal.

No citizen may simultaneously hold more than one office empowered to post game play instructions. Any member of the judiciary cannot simultaneously hold another office empowered to post game play instructions.