Dissemination of Information and Debate

[Man'O'Action]

Considering all of the very good ideas and arguments for and against the various issues before us, what do people think about delayed polls on binding votes?

This poll is strictly informational naturally, but I was wondering if there will be time for candidates to announce and discuss there platform for a day or two before voting begins. The same goes for the various laws and mandates that are to be voted on, should the opposition have a period to voice it's concern before voting begins?

My poll options are inspired by the gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable RoboPig.

Should a period of time for debate be given before voting begins on an issue?

 

[Gloriana]

I think this is a very valid question, as we've seen some good debating so far.

In essence I'm in favour of debating before voting, as that is what happens usually in all democracies over the world. When it comes to some decisions that need to be taken relatively quickly though, I do think it should be possible to skip the debating. I think we can leave it up to the president's discretion to determine which polls need discussion-skipping.

 

[Alphawolf]

I'm not voting on this poll because I don't like the way the options are worded and there is no middle choice (which I would have chosen). Any binding polls should have at least a 48 hour discussion but I have no problem with non-binding (informational) polls just being put up and let the discussion take place in that thread.

-the Wolf

 

[RoboPig]

My poll options are inspired by the gentleman from Michigan, the Honorable RoboPig.

thank you very much! here have a RoboPig for president badge!
on a more serious note, i agree with Awolf. but binding polls should have 3 days instead

 

[RegentMan]

There's always the option for debate in the nomination and election polls. Citizens ask questions there, and the candidates answer them and attack each other's answers. There's no need to force debate; suppose no one wants to?

Neither option is right for me. I vote no, but it's not the best idea I've heard in a long time. Perhaps we need some polling standards here. There's not even the traditional demogame abstain option!

 

[Stilgar08]

I'm not voting on this poll because I don't like the way the options are worded and there is no middle choice (which I would have chosen). Any binding polls should have at least a 48 hour discussion but I have no problem with non-binding (informational) polls just being put up and let the discussion take place in that thread.

-the Wolf

Couldn't you smell the irony?? Option 1 simply means "yes" option 2 simply means "no"! ManOAction: For me this was a good one!!
I don't know if this poll is necessery though. As a Newbie I would think debate is taken for granted when it comes to polls...

Nevertheless I voted "yes" since it IS important!

 

[DaveShack]

Since this is only informational it might be OK to focus on the general question and not on the specifics.

I'd say yes, we need to have guidelines for how long discussions should last, how long polls should last, and how much information needs to be made available to the citizens.

 

[Man'O'Action]

I'm not voting on this poll because I don't like the way the options are worded and there is no middle choice (which I would have chosen). Any binding polls should have at least a 48 hour discussion but I have no problem with non-binding (informational) polls just being put up and let the discussion take place in that thread.

-the Wolf

I would refer the gentlemen to my earlier comments stating:

Considering all of the very good ideas and arguments for and against the various issues before us, what do people think about delayed polls on binding votes?

Within the statement, I meant the delayed polls would be on binding votes only. Although, I can see now that it may have been unclear.

Furthermore if I may address the comments of the venerable RegentMan wherein he stated:

There's always the option for debate in the nomination and election polls. Citizens ask questions there, and the candidates answer them and attack each other's answers. There's no need to force debate; suppose no one wants to?

Neither option is right for me. I vote no, but it's not the best idea I've heard in a long time. Perhaps we need some polling standards here. There's not even the traditional demogame abstain option!

My intent is to allow (not force) debate before voting is opened on binding polls. My thought is for the candidate to be able to present his side before citizens head to the voting booths.

Furthermore my options were intended to be satirical in nature and the explanation in parentheses should be understood as the true nature of that selection.

Additionally, I would express my opinion that abstinence is its own option.


DaveShack:

I'd say yes, we need to have guidelines for how long discussions should last, how long polls should last, and how much information needs to be made available to the citizens.

As usual, DaveShack has summed up the situation more succinctly than I was able, and I echo his desire to have general information available to voters beforehand to ensure a free and fair election.

 

[Black_Hole]

Well, it shouldn't be required but reccomeneded, so I would vote other, but there is no other, so I will vote abstain, but there is no abstain, so I guess I won't vote...
(Please add other/abstain options, even to informational polls)

 

[Cyc]

Of course a period of discussion/debate is needed for binding polls, approval of laws and amendments, etc. The Code of Laws should list the polls that need to be open for (a number) hours. Possibly even the Judicial Code if that is still to be used.

Personal preference Polls (such as the one asking which color you would prefer to play Japan as in Civ3- Red or Green ) require no discussion.