Wow, missed some stuff with my inconsistent internet connection.
Requiring a 2/3 majority would be unconstitutional. The Constitution says that no poll may require a higher level of support than that required by an amendment -- currently 60%.
These comments refer to city naming.
The real solution to our naming woes is to go back to a simple "most votes wins" standard. This would take out most of the need for reruns, resulting in decisive polls most of the time. No need for seconding, if someone wants to propose a fringe name and waste his/her vote on it, more power goes to the mainstream choice. Set a time limit on nominations and the vote. We could even resolve ties by just choosing the 1st nominated name.
If someone strenuously objects to a name, they can always start a new nomination thread. The DG population tends to frown on people who play poll wars, so there is an element of risk.
As for unit naming I agree with the idea of the person who gives movement instructions being the one to name units.
Geographic names should be the cartographer's job. I would recommend getting citizen input, if one wants to be reappointed or elected to another position in the future. A citizen who objects could use a simple poll to require a feature to be unnamed or the name changed.
