Election Reformation (temporary)

[ravensfire]

Do you wish to adopt the following amendment to the Code of Standards?

CoS Section J.1.
d.  A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one 
      nomination in any election cycle.
    1.  The Election Office is responsible for contacting 
        citizens that have exceeded the limit.
    2.  Should the citizen not reduce their acceptances to 
        the limit, the Election Office shall interpret the 
        earliest acceptance as the only valid acceptance  
        when creating the election ballots.
    3.  Section J.1.d of the Code of Standards, and all subsections
         therein, shall be invalidated upon completion of the 
         Term 3 Election Cycle.

Link to discussion

Please vote as follows:
Yes - I wish to adopt this amendment
No - I do not wish to adopt this amendment
Abstain - I do not care either way.

Quorum needed: None
Approval level needed: A majority of voters must support the amendment

This poll shall run for 2 days.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[ravensfire]

This proposal will limit the number of elections a citizen may run in to 1 for each election cycle.

Please note that this law has a sunset clause, meaning it will expire automatically after the Term 3 elections are over.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Peri]

I think this is an excellent proposal. I will make elections much more of a contest and should encourage new or inexperienced players to run for office. The best part is that if this experiment fails we automatically revert back to the old system for Term 4.

 

[Strider]

No, Not only might this amendment keep some of our most experienced and talented players out of a job, but it severly takes down the contest in the elections.

Yes, it might allow inexperienced players to run, but that is the whole problem, there inexperienced. As far as I'm concerned, someone should not be elected because there new, but because they can do the job. If a relatively new person can prove to me, that they are capable of doing the job there running for, I will vote for them, but do not expect to get my vote, just because others will try anything to get new people into the game.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I vote an enthusiatic YES on this proposal. The time has come for our elected leaders to quit hedging their bets and decide exactly what role they want to play in forwarding our nation.

Strider, you are a bit off base here. In fact, there are several "inexperienced" players that are posting more insightful solutions that some of the vets, as far as I can see. But allowing the entrenched elite to fall back on their popularity by having a Plan B may keep that new voice from being heard.

Vote against entitlement! Vote for duty to one position in government!

Vote Yes.

 

[zorven]

I like this idea. It has always been difficult as a voter to pick your vote when you had to consider 4 different elections and who was winning where, so I should vote this person here so they will decline over there so the person I really want over yonder will win.

Plus, I think it will encourage more people to run for office, which is a good thing.

Vote YES

 

[DaveShack]

I would like to point out that if this standard is not adopted, then there will be no limit on the number of nominations a candidate can accept.

This proposal is actually the cure for a different disease entirely, which is what to do when one person actually wins more than one election. That case should be dealt with directly and not in this indirect manner, because this 'fix" for the problem takes flexibility away from the voters.

That said, we can't afford to go another term with subjectivity in the election process, so I must reluctantly support this measure. Vote yes

 

[Strider]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I vote an enthusiatic YES on this proposal. The time has come for our elected leaders to quit hedging their bets and decide exactly what role they want to play in forwarding our nation.

Strider, you are a bit off base here. In fact, there are several "inexperienced" players that are posting more insightful solutions that some of the vets, as far as I can see. But allowing the entrenched elite to fall back on their popularity by having a Plan B may keep that new voice from being heard.

Vote against entitlement! Vote for duty to one position in government!

Vote Yes.

May I point out that I said "If they prove they can do the job, then I'll vote for them." In my point of view, the entrenched elite got there somehow, and most likely with some time of skill. So tell me, what is the reason in knocking down people who have proven they can do the job time and time again? If they can continue to gain respect during discussions, and continue to prove that they are capable of the job, then they will get elected sooner or later. As such, the good gets replaced with the better.

 

[Cyc]

Moderator DZ in the second half of Term2....

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
But allowing the entrenched elite to fall back on their popularity by having a Plan B may keep that new voice from being heard.

Moderator DZ in the Term 1 Judicial Elections...

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Oh, I get it......I am the executive elite.

Please DZ. Land on one side of the fence or the other. And someone who talks about others being entrenched shouldn't be ignoring their PM's. I could continue here for another page, but what's the point?

I have nothing wrong with this proposal. Too bad people screwed things up so badly in this game that a true attempt at solving a problem has to be rushed to the polls (illegally) just to make it legal before the new deadline they created. This game reminds me of a Three Stooges movie.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Nice use of sound bytes, Cyc. Let me use one that sidesteps your blurred lines between my acting as a citizen here and my earlier response to an attack on my handling of the moderator position.

Quoth Cyc

I have nothing wrong with this proposal.

Good enough for me.

 

[Cyc]

See, that's where you've got it all wrong, DZ. My comments during the Term 1 Judicial Elections had nothing to do with you. Nothing. Period.

It wasn't until after you took what I said about the game personally (like you Mods accuse me of doing ) that we started discussing how your ignoring of PM's probably caused the whole mess. I was talking about "the elite" of the game, not you. You don't run for Office very often, and have lost elections. I didn't consider you "an elite" then. I was really suprised when you took personal offense to my comment. But I just lumped it in with all the other strange stuff in this game.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I know what you meant when you said that. My comment was in jest, as I was responding to your anger at my vocal endorsement of others in the race. And I have apologized several times for my shortsightedness during that time, although the "ignored" PMs were actually handled by me privately.

I still don't see what any of this has to do with this proposal, though.

 

[Cyc]

Actually, DZ... this has nothing to do with this proposal. By the way. I voted yes to this proposal.

I was poking fun at you for using the same rhetoric as I did in the Election. In your post above, you claimed your comment (maybe you and I are the only ones who remember it) was in jest, responding to my anger at your vocal endorsements of ravensfire. I realize you will probably never realize that I was in no way talking to you. You never crossed my mind, DZ. That was all in your head (thank God there was something there at that time ). I figured the only reason you were supporting ravensfire (after all, DZ he was the only other person in the race) was because you were trying to make him a Moderator. So that didn't really bother me, besides the fact that I knew you were making a big mistake. Plus, when all that was going done, you told me you had done nothing about it, in a PM, so shame on you for fibbing.

The comment about ignoring PMs was really about the PM I sent you earlier this week. I sent it to you in the morning and watched you come on all day and night (5 times at least) and never read my PM. It wasn't until I PMed you again, 24 hours later than you graciously granted me privilage of addressing you via PM. THEN, you answered me. That's what I was talking about, DZ. But once again....You've gotten on your horse and rode off in the wrong direction.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Well, I can see there is no way I am going to win this one. But at least, my endorsed proposal is winning.

Thanks for clearing my head on some things though, old friend. Definitely food for thought..........

 

[TerminalMan90]

After the flame wars above, this gripe may seem pretty lame, but I disagree with the comment next to the abstain option. For me Abstain not only means 'I don't care' but can also mean 'I am not informed enough to know', 'I take issue with how this poll was phrased', 'I would support this issue but I disagree with the part where ...'.

The apathetic citizens vote 'I don't care' by not voting at all.

That being said, I voted yes

 

[ravensfire]

This proposal has passed.

-- Ravensfire, Chief Justice of Fanatica

 

[donsig]

Well, ain't this nice. I didn't even get to vote in the flippin' poll! You might as well have contucted a spot vote in the darn chat. So much for giving everyone on the forums a chance to be part of the democracy.

 

[Sarevok]

donsig, I missed the vote too and im not angry (my side won anyways ). Just because you missed a vote dosent mean that the whole system here is wrong and isnt a democracy becaosue you didnt vote here.

 

[Cyc]

Sarevok, what donsig is saying is that this is a "Democracy" game. We have rules that are set up that need to be adhered to in order to give Citizens of the game (like you) a fair shake. An amendment to the Three Books is a big deal in this game. We have rules that direct us in the changes of any law. Normally, a poll for ratification is run for four (4) days. This one was run for two (2). Normally a proposal is posted for 24 hours for people to examine and recomend changes, this one was not. By not adhering to the standard rules of amending our legislation, one can deny others certain rights and privilages due them just because they are a citizen. He's not crying 'cause he didn't get to vote, he's complaining about the lack of procedure in a very important process of the Demogame. A lack of procedure that denied him the opportunity to participate.