DG4 Election Schedules

[FortyJ]

Alright, I broached this subject in the Timeline thread, and then figured it deserved its own thread for some proper discussion. Also, this thread totally presumes that the Calendar-based Term Schedules will remain in effect. So, if we ultimately decide to switch to another format for our election cycles, then kindly disregard this entire proposal and ensuing discussion.

Here's the current schedule:

Nominations Open: 24th of Month (22nd in Feb)

Debate Threads Open: 26th of Month (24th in Feb)

Polls Open: 29th of Month (27th in Feb)

Polls Close: last day of Month

I have two problems with this schedule: it leaves no wiggle room for runoff elections and tight races prevent the newly elected leader from knowing he/she has won until after the term has started.

A simple shift of this schedule, say 72 hours earlier, would solve both problems. Having the elections close 3 days before the end of the month would allow ample time for a runoff election and would give the newly elected leaders sufficient time to get their office in order before the term commences.

Of course, this shift would not provide us with these benefits unless we retain our original transfer of power (ie. the 1st of the Month). This will create a lame-duck period of up to 3 days, but there's no real harm in that, especially compared to the benefits of resolving all the races a little early.

In conclusion, I propose that we move the entire election schedule up 3 days, or as follows:

Nominations Open: 20th/21st of Month (18th in Feb)

Debate Threads Open: 22nd/23rd of Month (20th in Feb)

Polls Open: 25th/26th of Month (23rd in Feb)

Polls Close: end of day, 27th/28th of Month (25th in Feb)

Runoff Polls Open (if needed): 28th/29th of Month (26th in Feb)

Runoff Polls Close (if needed): End of Last Day of Month

New Leaders Take Office: First Day of Following Month

 

[Octavian X]

I've no problems with this proposal. It does cause the distraction of elections to occur earlier, but I don't care about that much.

I'd say go for it.

 

[Cyc]

I think because this is the start of a new game, early elections is a good idea. Not only will it allow plenty of time to get set up, but it will not impede on the damn Holidays.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Cyc, I think that what FortyJ is suggesting here is more permanent than that, as his proposal suggests we follow this schedule throughout the entire game. Are you still in?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Actually, so we make good use of this thread, why don't we settle the issue of our term schedule now?

Here is the Poll: Turn/Calendar Based Terms

 

[Sarevok]

sounds good, so were starting either 2-04, or 3-04?

 

[GenMarshall]

Well as the Owner of the Election office. I will be happy to endorse this discussion .

Personaly, I liked the traditional Schedual

Nominations Open: 24th of Month (22nd in Feb)

Debate Threads Open: 26th of Month (24th in Feb)

Polls Open: 29th of Month (27th in Feb)

Polls Close: last day of Month

I would like to see this scedual be still in place. The reason is that it would not get people all worked up when the Nominations beguin at the 20th of the month in witch would cause a distraction.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Sarevok
sounds good, so were starting either 2-04, or 3-04?

Um, no, the schedule is to start 1-1-04...

 

[DaveShack]

I'm concerned about starting the election cycle any earlier, because it seems (to me at least) that in some cases the current term's officials start slacking off and preparing to leave things to the next term.

How about an alternative proposal to address the government transition problem? Pick some strategy to handle interim leadership while the election results are straightened out. Several possibilities come to mind. These are not necessarily all good ideas, but I like a good lively debate.

1. Previous leader carries on until a successor is named
2. Outgoing president appoints someone to hold the office temporarily
3. Incoming president chooses someone to fill in
4. Candidate with more terms as elected official is temporary leader
5. Candidate with less experience is temporary leader
6. Earliest / latest registration as a citizen is temporary leader
7. executive council handles duties of the office
8. incoming president handles duties of the office
   [/list=1]
   
   While some of these might be controversial, any of them should serve to address the problem of not knowing who has been elected on the 1st, without moving elections impact earlier in the month.

 

[FortyJ]

Nobody has suggested that a leader cease and desist all actions until the elections are complete. In fact, it is the responsibility of the leader to carry out his/her responsibilities until the end of the term, regardless of when the actual elections takes place.

Furthermore, for those concerned about any potential distraction resulting from advancing the election timetable by three days, I would comment that any incumbent leader that neglects his/her responsibilities in favor of campaigning for re-election would suffer in the election poll as a result, and therefore, by advancing the timetable, it may actually increase leader participation in the latter stages of the term.

Also, this proposal does not lengthen the election process. It merely advances it by a number of days. Therefore, since the process itself occupies the same number of days, the time needed to campaign for office would be the same under both schedules as well. It follows then, that advancing the schedule should not adversely impact the leader's ability to perform his/her duties.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Cyc, I think that what FortyJ is suggesting here is more permanent than that, as his proposal suggests we follow this schedule throughout the entire game. Are you still in?

Actually, the reason I liked this proposal was because I thought it concerned only the DG4 opening elections. So, yer right DZ. I was mistaken. I would want to revert back to the traditional schedule at the end of January and continue with it throughout the game.

quoting 40J:
Furthermore, for those concerned about any potential distraction resulting from advancing the election timetable by three days, I would comment that any incumbent leader that neglects his/her responsibilities in favor of campaigning for re-election would suffer in the election poll as a result, and therefore, by advancing the timetable, it may actually increase leader participation in the latter stages of the term.

Sorry 40J, I disagree with this statement. I don't believe that's the reason people slack off at the end of their term. If an incumbent Leader knows on, let's say the 26th, that his former constituents have forsaken him, he may feel the need to take a quick vacation. I've seen it a lot over the past 3 Demogames. Sometimes it's laziness, sometimes the choice must be made between r/l and a game. If a Leader knows the citizens have voted him out, I think r/l concerns would get a difinite edge.

Some Leaders put a non-commital period of R&R in the end of their Term whether they were re-elected or not. Believe me, it happens. (These players need a swift kick in the pants, but I can't reach them.) So if the election schedule was permantly advanced, this period of Rest and Relaxation would also be extended by these humdrum Leaders. I can't condone a proposal that would encourage this practice.

Because the begining of the game is so crucial, and because the begining of the game is taking place around the Holidays, early elections for the 1st Term is a damn good idea. We would have to revert to the traditional schedule after that to gain my support, though.

 

[FortyJ]

Well, so much for that idea.

 

[FortyJ]

That's a great point Cyc - one that I had overlooked, and as such, I concede the point and withdraw the proposal as it was originally written.

However, I still can see the benefit of ending the elections before the term actually begins. What about a compromise? What if we advanced the elections by only 1 day?

That wouldn't allow for the runoff elections, obviously, but it shouldn't encourage premature vacations either. Plus, it allows the newly elected leaders a little buffer to prepare their official threads and such before the term begins.

 

[Cyc]

I don't see a major problem with that 40J, as long as everyone understood that the incumbents thread was the one to be used until the end of the Term. Having two Governmental threads up at the same time can be confusing to the new player whose not quite up to speed. But that would only be for a day or so, which I wouldn't mind.

I'd still like to see the early schedule for Term 1 though.

 

[Bootstoots]

I think a 2 day period after elections would work better, because we would have ample time for runoff elections. However, I would support a 1-day period as well. Cyc makes a valid point about absentee lame duck leaders, but I don't actually think this will be a major problem if we have a 2-day period between elections and the start of the new term.

 

[donsig]

Well, so nice of us to have this discussion after we poll for turn based versus calender based terms. It's really good to know that the idea of turn based terms is getting a fair shake.

 

[FortyJ]

I was inspired by this idea and wanted to post it before the thought fled from my failing mind.

This entire discussion was predicated on the assumption that the calendar-based system would not be replaced in favor of something different and that if it was, then the discussion should be considered moot. I thought I had made this clear in the first sentence of the first post of this thread.

I regret if anyone mistakenly concluded that I, or anyone else that has participated in this discussion, had somehow presumed that the decision on whether or not we would use Calendar-based Terms or Turn-based Terms was a foregone conclusion. Please accept my apologies for not waiting until that issue had been beaten to a pulp before offering this premature suggestion.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

To get this topic going again, I think we should keep things the way they are.

My major concern is the possibility of a "lame duck" turn chat, where it is possible that that an outgoing President(voted home by the people) could set up quite a welcome for his opponent and successor. I know that this is an alarmist scenario, but it could happen. And since we seem to be on the verge of giving the DP near absolute power once the turnchat starts, I don't know if this is the best approach.

I suppose the above could happen under our current schedule as well, but I would still find it better if the last turnchat were played before the polls closed.

If we are worried about vacant offices at the beginning of a term, then let's give the President power of appointment again.

 

[Bootstoots]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
To get this topic going again, I think we should keep things the way they are.

My major concern is the possibility of a "lame duck" turn chat, where it is possible that that an outgoing President(voted home by the people) could set up quite a welcome for his opponent and successor. I know that this is an alarmist scenario, but it could happen. And since we seem to be on the verge of giving the DP near absolute power once the turnchat starts, I don't know if this is the best approach.

I suppose the above could happen under our current schedule as well, but I would still find it better if the last turnchat were played before the polls closed.

What if we include a law that no turns may be played during the "lame duck" period between the election and the start of the new turn? That should solve the problem of a "lame duck" turn chat, at least to the extent that we have now.

If we are worried about vacant offices at the beginning of a term, then let's give the President power of appointment again.

I support that to a limited extent. I think it would be best if we retain the mid-term elections but give the President the power to appoint a pro-tempore leader in case of a vacancy or absence until the office is filled by mid-term election or runoff, or to stand if there is less than one week left in the term.

 

[FortyJ]

Slightly alarmist, I'd say. Out of curiosity, what's to stop a retiring president (one that's not running for re-election) from sabotaging the incoming administration anyway?

I agree with what Cyc said - 3 days is too much. However, I do believe that 1 day would still be an improvement and should avoid any lame duck issues.