discussion: only run for 1 position?

[Eklektikos]

I can't say I like the provincial/local elections idea. Firstly because governors' decisions can affect the game as a whole, and therefore the entire population should have a say in their appointment. Secondly, it would be unenforcable with a secret ballot (unless it were in the form of PMs to DoM, but since his time has become so limited of late I doubt he'd go for that), and I don't think we should force people to reveal whom they've voted for.

 

[Octavian X]

To add to that, some province's conly citizens are the potential governors.

 

[disorganizer]

my 2c:
* governors:
should be normally elected, but at a seperate election time (like the 15th).

* mayors:
should be elected by the populace of their city.
the first citizen in a city will automatically become the mayor of it. any citizen can call for an mayor-election after the mayor was in his office for at least one term. a local open election will then be held in the city thread.

* independant counties:
when a city reaches a production limit (like 50 shields or so. still to be defined but should be really rarely reached), the mayor can declare the city a "[cityname] independant county" (of course naming can still be discussed). the city will then be treated like a province with own instruction post, but the then to be "lord mayor" will not be member of the senate. the decission of declaring independance must be accepted by 2/3 of the populace of the city in an open poll in the city thread.
any city directly neighboring a independant county can join this county by holding a 2/3 populace vote. the city, no matter which province it belonged to before, will then join the independent county and leave its originating province.

* populace poll:
all citizens of a city except the ones having moved there withing the running term are allowed to vote in a populace poll (this prevents citizens from moving there just to influence a decission and then move somewhere else).
the poll is held as open poll (like a cabinet-poll) in the city thread.
the poll can also be spawned to a seperate thread in the citizen forum if the mayor likes to, but a link has then to be place into the city-thread for reference.

 

[Shaitan]

How about this idea:

If the population of a city (virtual population, not the population in the save game) is at least equal to the total number of Councilors (6) or Provinces (whichever number is GREATER), that city can determine it's own build queue through internal discussion and voting. This would cater to the "ethnic groups" and their propensity to adopt a single city as a source of their culture.

 

[disorganizer]

this way cities could loose their right to choose build queues. anyway the minimum should be that a mayors build queue will be proceeded to the turn-chat thread when a governor does not respond to a proposal within 2 days.

 

[Cyc]

Just a note. The original intent of the Domestic Department commissioning Delphi County as it own entity was to make Delphi County a visable component in the support of the Province of Kashmir. It was not intended to allow Delphi County to break away from the Province. This is where the above conversation is leading to. I have no problem with Dis calling himself "Lord Mayor" , but his County and all the cities within it are all part of Kashmir. The Lord Mayor should show respect to his Governor.

I also believe the choosing of Mayors should remain as always. When a city is created, a citizen can claim to be mayor of the city be means of modifying their registry post. If their claim is disputed, the claim with the earliest (or first) Date/Time stamp wins. There is no need for appointment or election.

I also don't think splitting elections is a good idea. It will probably just confuse the voters and drag participation down. Such as, is the candidate an incumbent somewhere else? That's just one point, I'm sure more will arise. Do we really need to complicate the process more?

 

[disorganizer]

The above proposal was not meant for delphi county, as it was only created for administration purposes (well, it looked and sounded nice).

Why shouldnt it be allowed for a city to break away from a province if the mayority (2/3) of it want to?

 

[Shaitan]

I guess the biggest problem with breakaway cities would be that this leads to a regression to city states. Now, if a majority of the citizenry wants to designate a province of 1 city, I say go for it. That already exists under our current rules.

 

[Almightyjosh]

AS TO 'MAYOR KINGS'

The system of government is designed around groups of cities called provinces.

These provinces are defined by borders approved by the citizens and run by a governor elected by the citizens.

Mayors are, and always should be, advisory positions. Mayors are merely citizens showing intence interest in the city they live.

All the powers of a mayor derive from the power the governor, the elected official, wishes to grant them. Beyond that, they have only the rights of the normal citizenry.

The governor should listen to the mayors, but their opinion is no more valid then that of any other citizen.

The only circumstances in which mayors could be given the power to post build ques is if we disband the provinces entirely and regress to a city baced government, in which every city has an elected mayor (elected by everyone, not just the people who live there). In this case, we would NEVER EVER EVER have elections, we are having trouble filling 12 governor positions, let alone 60 Mayor positions.

Mayors are not elected by the general citizenry and there is no way to do so. Making it so the citizens of a city can vote for a mayor who controls the buildque is un-democratic. What each city produces effects EVERYONE, not just the people living there. This is why everyone votes on the governors, not just residents of the relevant provinces.

In short:
- Mayors are not elected and never could we have a working democratic system where they were.
- Un-elected officials have NO power beyond that of a regular citizens. Mayor is an honorary title that designates a person as having an interest in that city.
- Any power a mayor has should come solely from the power of the governor. ie posting buildques.
-What every city does should be controlled by a representitive elected under unversal sufferage

This is how it is, this is how it should be, this is how it MUST be.

 

[Almightyjosh]

AS TO INDEPENDANT COUNTIES
The production limit is no guide as to how many citizens live there. Danke is the only citizen of elephantine, and the Mayor (I use him as the first to come to mind). Elephantine produces more than 60 shields. He could declare a, independant county and declare himself king (this would not be like Danke, it's an example). No elections and no democracy, he would instantly be in charge of a build que in a major city. This is true regardless of what statistic you bace the eligabilty by. The only other options are letting any city declare, which has the same issues as well as the ones stated in the post before this one, or judgeing the elegability on the number of virtual citizens. As dis pointed out, a city could easily loose county status if people move away. Besides, we have never and should never bace rights of cities by the number of virtual citizens!!.

As to the 2/3 of the citizens of the city, what city is going to vote against independance?? Sure it might be fun for them, but it is hardly democratic in a national sense. The only proposed distinction between the unelected 'lord mayor' and the elected governor is that the lord mayor would not be in the senate. This is a joke as everyone knows the senate does nothing and has no executable powers.

The idea of joining surrounding cities means that new provinces would be created, destroying the power, spirit and community of our traditional provinces. It also means borders could change without the support of the citizenry.

Ultimately, and I have said this before, it is the governor's job to consult the citizenry and act accordingly. Any issues that are decided exclusively by polling citizens of one city or province should be decitions that the governor has power to implement without a general poll.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

*puts on poofy wig, same one from senate*
Hear Hear!
Almightyjosh, that has got to be one of your best posts yet.
As we aproach the sunset of Phonetica and the rise of Phonetica Jr. (?), the cabinet will be redefined. Some will stay on. Others will ride of into the painfull sunset known only as school. (Going to try to avoid that)
If this should happen, multiple positions could spell the end to the new nation.
People should have the following:
A province they belong to.
A job in that province (Governor, Mayor, ect.)
If they are Governors, they can be mayors of their capitol city.
Mayors and specalists are just normal citizens with input on the build quees.
Governors, however, define these quees.
They may also have a job not relating to the province (ie- Chieftess, Mayor of Xinjang, President of DemoGame)
These jobs are all elected, unless they are Groups.
Other jobs, such as societies, have known member lists.
Jobs that have input on the game (RPG Bank, National Park Service) must be ratified by a council quorm.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

umm
non related question
how come the same people always relpy to things?
arent there any citizens out there that want to be elevated?
I know i did
so where are the other people like me

 

[Almightyjosh]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
*puts on poofy wig, same one from senate*
Hear Hear!
Almightyjosh, that has got to be one of your best posts yet.

Thanks, I'm honing my skills on you guys. I'm looking at being the youngest office bearer at my uni and well, look out for a guy called Josh as the prime minister of Australia in about 30 years. You'll know it's me when I say Victory for Australia!!
I even live in Victoria!! (RL)

 

[donsig]

Re: Local elections

If more than one citizen wants to be mayor of a city I don't think the earliest time stamp should be the criteria used to choose between the contestants. Mayors can be a positive influence on the demo game. Mayors can also become influential. While I see nothing wrong with having volunteer mayors I also see nothing wrong with mayors being challenged for thier position. Let the people of the city decide. Instead of using the secret ballot an election thread can be opened wherein the city's citizens can post their vote. That way any non-citizens who vote can be identified and their votes disqualified.

I suggested the same voting procedure for national elections after the ballot box stuffing allegations of the term three elections.

 

[Stuck_as_a_Mac]

Ehh
were winning in a few turns.
we will fix the constitution when we start anew.

 

[Almightyjosh]

We should have prelimeinary elections for some positions!!

For president is the most obvious, as we know during the term who is elegable to run. Let EVERYONE who wants to and is elegable to run, run in a preselection. The top two or three (best as two) could run for president!! Running in the preselction does not mean you cannot run for another position as well, running in the final election does. This would widen the pool of candidates for President, while allowing people a shot at a position!!

Possibly this could be extended to the two powerful cabinet positions, domestic and millitary leaders, or ever the whole cabinet. This way we can have our cake and eat it too. People can only run for one position in the final elections, but they can have a crack at a few things. You don't risk running for a position and getting no votes and loosing your old position!!

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Stuck_As_a_Mac
Ehh
were winning in a few turns.
we will fix the constitution when we start anew.

Put your poofy wig away my friend. The constitution does not need fixing. All we need do for the next game is carry over the constitution as is while leaving the CoL and CoS locked up in the archive.
The laws and standards of the new demo game should be built as the game progresses and the need for laws arises. Before we start that game we should seriously consider what laws and standards actually are. We should also discuss the kinds of things that can be done without having to write a rule to do it!

 

[Shaitan]

Donsig - This would be a good poll item.

Q: Should we carry over the Code of Laws and Code of Standards to the new game?
1. YES - Take them as-is so we start with a complete rule set.
2. NO - We will make new laws and standards as the need arises.

 

[Almightyjosh]

I hace opened a discussion of what and how various things, including the COL and COS could be carried over to next game
here
Hopefully this will lead to a poll, or series of polls about what we should carry over. I was gonna run the polls straight away, but I figured it needed some thought first. See, I'm always ready to try new things

 

[donsig]

Originally posted by Shaitan
Donsig - This would be a good poll item.

Q: Should we carry over the Code of Laws and Code of Standards to the new game?
1. YES - Take them as-is so we start with a complete rule set.
2. NO - We will make new laws and standards as the need arises.

I am shocked that the Chief Justice would suggest a poll that doesn't have the abstain option.

Seriously, I'm not so sure jumping into a poll is the way to proceed. We need a discussion thread or a debate thread. I still think the constitution is a complete set of rules.
I do not like the CoL or the CoS. I originally envisioned the standards to be for governors and leaders to use in fulfilling their respective duties. Things like the turn chat schedule, turn chat thread, procedure for making budget requests, etc., that are needed for the government to function but don't necessarily need the consent of the citizenry to set up and do.
I thought we would pass laws when needed as a last resort to bring current and future officials into line with citizens wishes. I always figured we citizens would voice our concerns first and try to get what we wanted by asking for it and only demanding it via laws when our reasonable requests were denied and/or ignored.

Another reason I think a poll is premature is that we really should take a look at the constitution. Personally, I'd like to see a couple changes made for the next demo game.
First I think we should scrap article K. Public turn chats should neither be mandated nor forbidden by the constitution. Using the turn chat should be an option and the choice should be the president's. By mandating a turn chat we lose many potential presidential candidates from the git go. The use of turn chats can be a campaign issue.
Second, I think we should base the terms on the Civ game calender rather than the real calender. Each term should be a specified number of turns in the Civ game. This can be a fixed number throughout the game or the earlier terms can have more turns than the latter terms since the turns take longer to play as the game progresses.

I also think we should specifically allow political parties.

These are some of the things I think we should discuss before we start another game.