Elections for Term 3 President

[ravensfire]

Article D of the Constitution:

1. Terms of service of all elected and appointed offices shall be determined in advance of the beginning of such term, as further defined by law.
2. All Election and other polls in which specific individuals are chosen by name shall be private polls, and not public polls.
3. The candidate with the highest vote total is the winner of an election poll, regardless of whether such vote total is a majority of votes cast or not.
   • Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

That's pretty darn clear, folks. Runoff poll.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Nobody]

ooooo Lets settle this in the courts that will be great fun, i say strider never fomally accepted the nomination (not a dig at strider)

 

[robboo]

There is no basis for co-president. The article that Ravensfire quoted is clear. By doing this it would further open up the game to"ohh lets fine a loophole".

Have the run off and this time you guys post what you want to accomplish then open up the voting. If after this runoff we cant decide then we are indeed in a situaion where we need to discuss other options.

Or one of you could step down now and declare the other one president

 

[Curufinwe]

Personally I like Chills thinking. There are many cases in the history where offices have been, and are, invested in multiple people. The office of 'Lord High Treasurer" in the United Kingdom is invested in a large number people, headed by the First Lord of the Treasury, the Prime Minister. the office of Lord Great Chamberlain is collectively held by a large number of people, some holding only 1/80th of it. In Switzerland the Federal Council is a collective head of state. There is plenty of precedent for joint holding of office, all rising about with need, and with not holding oneself to a narrow interpretation of the laws.

Furthermoer, in another article it says that:

Section 5 Elections

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.


Nowhere implying a single president, or holder of any office. And furthermore, it is exactly this kind of legalistic thinking, that words can only mean what they are written as, that has little precedent in real world law. I would point out that the regulations governing the DP are, if the above section is to be as well, in potential violation of Article D. however, neither of them are. We must remember that constitutions are to be interpreted broadly, with view of the needs and desires of the time.

 

[donsig]

Curu - see ravensfire's post above. It is quite clear that it was meant that only one person should win each election and therefore only one person should hold each office.

 

[BCLG100]

yer run off poll, its nice that you 2 want to run together however one leader is needed.

 

[robboo]

The only way for co-presidents would be if they stated they are running together from the get-go..that isnt forbidden anywhere that I can tell....anyone???

I know I am just the Sec of War but I am half of the Tri that is elected. I know that I dont have the power to say anything about elections. But with 2 vacant positions in our government I think we need to get moving on filling them.

One other thought...what do Strider and Chill say about one of you being the president and the other be appointed as chief justice this term. Of course you would have to work that out between yourselves and one would have to withdraw or we can re-poll.

Incidentally..I wont change my vote based on what I read before BUT if you guys present a better arguement I could be swayed and will come out as Sec of War and throw my support behind one of you.

 

[DaveShack]

We'll waste more time talking about whether a runoff is needed than it would take to just do the runoff. The new censor should just go ahead and post it, with a 48 hour cutoff.

 

[greekguy]

Post a runoff poll. Co-Presidents is a unique way of dealing with this problem, but the Constitution obviously was written with the intention of each office having 1 elected person hold it. 2 Presidents is ridiculous, since we'll have a winner within a week. It's not like the delay will kill us. Just post a runoff poll.

 

[Strider]

Curu - see ravensfire's post above. It is quite clear that it was meant that only one person should win each election and therefore only one person should hold each office.

Depends entirely on how you interpret the words "resolve the election."

By doing this, we resolve the election without the use of any run-off polls.

Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

By our constitution, the election is now resolved. It does not imply that a runoff poll is the only method of resolving a tied election.

 

[robboo]

you can not interpret the constitution that is the judical area.It doesnot matter if we have a cheif justice...you can not do it.

one question...which one of you came up with this idea? I am sure it will effect how I vote in the next election along with others who see this as a backroom deal.

 

[GenMarshall]

If a runoff poll happens, I predict that the samething would happen, another tie.

 

[robboo]

Can we see first???

Will one of you tell us who came up with this idea?

 

[Strider]

you can not interpret the constitution that is the judical area.It doesnot matter if we have a cheif justice...you can not do it.

It is my constitution to interpret. I am a citizen of this demogame. This thought that the constitution holds supreme is disturbing. You even read the preamble? It was established by the citizens, it is ours.

one question...which one of you came up with this idea? I am sure it will effect how I vote in the next election along with others who see this as a backroom deal.

It was my idea, I thought it would be a shame to only beable to put one of our platforms into effect. As for the backroom deal accusation, this hardly qualifies. If we wanted to strike a backroom deal, then we wouldn't have proposed it to the citizens.

 

[Curufinwe]

Then let the judiciary interpret it. Sadly, however, there are members lacking, which can not be filled until the Presidency chooses to do so. Therefore, we are in a bind, and no statement either way can be made with the force of law, since you can't say that co-presidency is non-legal or legal. Don't you just love constitutional crisises?

 

[mhcarver]

Then let the judiciary interpret it. Sadly, however, there are members lacking, which can not be filled until the Presidency chooses to do so. Therefore, we are in a bind, and no statement either way can be made with the force of law, since you can't say that co-presidency is non-legal or legal. Don't you just love constitutional crisises?

actually, the secretary of state(acting as president since the office is vacant) has appointed nobody(the person) to fill the role of Chief Justice, I have already pm'd the new members of the court requesting a review of the situation.

 

[Curufinwe]

Appointed nobody to fill it, just sounds odd. But, very good.

 

[robboo]

actually..right now Sec of state has presdential powers..per the constitution.

Strider..that flippant attitude to the constitution cost you my vote and hopefully those votes of every person who sees that the constitution is bigger than any one citizen.

You also didnt propose it to us..you stated it as fact. We had no say.

 

[ravensfire]

Before anything else happens, the Censor needs to make their decision on what's going to happen.

Swissempire - what's the official position of the Censor on this matter? Is there a run-off, or will you declare the two of them co-Presidents?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider..that flippant attitude to the constitution cost you my vote and hopefully those votes of every person who sees that the constitution is bigger than any one citizen.

I never said that any one person was bigger than the constitution, I was implying that the amendment process makes the citizens larger than the constitution.

It does however, take one person to start an amendment.

You also didnt propose it to us..you stated it as fact. We had no say.

From the proposal Chillaxation posted:

We propose to the people that the executive powers of the presidency be split between us as Co-Presidents.