law/Amendment regarding number of candidacies?

[KCCrusader]

Now that the constitution is (almost) finished and ratified, I would like to throw in the air an idea of a law or amendment regarding the number of offices a citizen can run for each term. The purpose of this thread is for discussion of the idea, and if it is accepted to work out the wording (Since currently i suppose citizens will have to submit the wording of an amendment since we have no congress or executive branch :-D). Feel free to express your opinions regarding what to do about the problem (it is a problem) of having 6 or 8 people running for an office.

Even though I am currently actively running for two positions and at one time was considering 3, I support limiting the number of candidacies to 1 office per person. This would decrease the number of citizens running for each office and more importantly provide means for achieving a majority of support for one candidate. It is necissary for us to decide on a way to limit the number of people running for an office as a candidate who wins with only 21% of the vote (currently the case for science minister) not only is illogical, it also rips at the seam of our constitution. If a near majority (at LEAST 40%) of citizens did not support a candidate in the election, how can we be certain this is the true will of the people?

Also, with no limit on number of candidacies, this method skims close to violating Constitution Article H. If someone wins two or three elections, there is no process regarding acceptances. Having the winners virtually choose which positions to resign from and which one to keep is very prone to favoritism. For example. If I ran for two things and won both elections i would have to choose one thing to be. In my first poll, CT, immortal, daveshack, etc was in second and in the other, which I won against a REAL newbie other than myself, It would be wrong in my opinion to allow me to choose to accept the position i want, and allow the experienced player to have the other one, or to accept the other position and allow the newbie to have one. This is bending the will of the people, who elected ME for a position and it is unlawful to allow any elected official (with the exception of judges in an official case) to name the winner of another election!

The current lack of rules governing our election procedure is unsatisfactory. Action must be taken, and i propose either:
1. Limiting citizens to run for one, two, three...etc. offices only.
2. Keep the current unlimited procedure, but create a law for a runoff procedure to ensure the right candidate wins.

I full will heartedly use my new Article A rights to express grievances as shown :-D

Thanks, and DISCUSS NOW!
KCC

 

[Immortal]

the first point you make is obviously, my contention.

 

[Civman2004]

If we're going to allow multiple nominations (I am willing to support up to 3 nominations per person, although I'd go with 2) I think we need the nominees to nominate a preferred order. For example, if I run for President, CJ and Science Advisor, I have to list them in the order I prefer, and if I win all 3, I automatically get elected to my advised first preference, and get scratched from the other elections.

This would work better with a preferential voting system, as if I am scratched from an election, what happens to those people who voted for me? Do their votes become void?

I can see a runoff procedure turning into a lengthy process. To me preferential voting is the obvious solution, but this can't currently be implemented in the forums, we would have to use an external website, which might not be that bad an idea.

The current system does not address what happens when people "lose" their votes, as the result of their chosen candidate being elected to another office

 

[Donovan Zoi]

@CivMan 2004 - all your concerns can be remedied by limiting nom acceptance to one per term. We have enough people to make this work, and citizens can take pride in the fact that they are not hedging their bets come election time.

I am totally against a lenghty runoff system as well. Our election timeframe is long enough as it is.

 

[Comnenus]

I definitely support one office nomination per candidate. The way it stands right now, people are running for the office they want, but hedging their bets by running for multiple offices. This is pure power-mongering in my opinion. Hey, if you don't get the high office that you run for, there are other, lesser offices that will come into being. It needs to be about service to the nation, not about being in charge.

 

[Cyc]

I agree. Prior to the elections, I campaigned for "1 Person/ 1 Office Nomination". But the peoplw voted against it because they were afraid of losing their place in Government. Therefore I took advantage of the situation they created and ran for 3 Offices. I still say let's restrict each person to accepting 1 Nomination. It's the proper way to do things.

 

[Immortal]

let this be a lesson to be recorded in Demogame history: Sometimes, there are good rules from the last constitution.

 

[Civman2004]

This is partially why I support a staggered voting system - advisor then deputy 2 weeks later. As it is, if you miss out on your chosen position, you have to wait a month before you can run for anything else, which does seem a bit harsh.

The other difficulty will be that once someone sees a strong candidate up for a certain position, they won't contest it - they'll go for something they think they have more of a chance in, and the strong candidate could well march through unopposed. I'm hardly going to nominate if I see chieftess or immortal, etc, having already accepted the nomination.

 

[Provolution]

I think there should be various rulesets for each term, as dictated by both the number of provinces and the number of ministry and deputy seats. Term one has only one province and several ministry positions, where term 5 may have several provinces.

I think everyone should be able to run for President and governor in a province, but each player must state what province they live in well before the election campaign, so no one speculates in cammpaigning in provinces with less candidates. Presidential races should have a running mate, so that the alternatives can be all over the forums.

To make the governor job more attractive, give the governor control of the police units keeping order in the cities, job specialties in the cities and infrastructure like airports, radar, fortresses and so on. Maybe also a small standing force like the national guard watching the province internally. In larger empires, the Domestic and Military ministers may have their hands full, so this management can be given away.

 

[Sarevok]

let this be a lesson to be recorded in Demogame history: Sometimes, there are good rules from the last constitution.

Indeed. Put this in!

 

[Cyc]

This is partially why I support a staggered voting system - advisor then deputy 2 weeks later. As it is, if you miss out on your chosen position, you have to wait a month before you can run for anything else, which does seem a bit harsh.

This might work, but I have a feeling that it will break up the flow of the game. Besides, you'd be suprised at how fast a Term goes by.

The other difficulty will be that once someone sees a strong candidate up for a certain position, they won't contest it - they'll go for something they think they have more of a chance in, and the strong candidate could well march through unopposed. I'm hardly going to nominate if I see chieftess or immortal, etc, having already accepted the nomination.

I've been saying this to the game vets for years now. This is exactly the reason that I chose to be Mayor of Gorina in DG3. I wanted my absense in the ballots to be openings for the newer players. It's also why I've been sticking to the Judiciary (besides try to apply my knowledge).

I think there should be various rulesets for each term, as dictated by both the number of provinces and the number of ministry and deputy seats. Term one has only one province and several ministry positions, where term 5 may have several provinces.

I think everyone should be able to run for President and governor in a province, but each player must state what province they live in well before the election campaign, so no one speculates in cammpaigning in provinces with less candidates. Presidential races should have a running mate, so that the alternatives can be all over the forums.

I believe both of these ideas are a little too complicated for this game. One ruleset for the whole game works best. Localized elections (running for your Province of Redience) have been discussed for two Demogames and not been approved. Running for President with a running mate has also been discussed and may be accepted in the future, but hasn't had over-whelming success yet. And I believe 1 Office and 1 Nomination per person will prevail.

 

[Espírito]

I disagree with the One Person - One Nomination, but feel there should be a limit set at 2/3, otherwise, people will run only for the most favoured jobs and not for the others so some offices will have 15 candidates, some 2.

Surely, we should set a minimum of 50% (or whatever is agreed) as to the votes to get into an office, if this means taking the top two candidates from a previous poll and having a second poll then do it this way, this would also allow you to eliminate the candidates who have gained two positions and rejected one so that 2nd place doesnt get in but still has to have a run off against 3rd who may be more popular with the people who originally voted for 1st place. - Am I making sense?

Just noted a similar decision is happening here

 

[Epimethius]

Making it impossible to self nominate should help things, by weeding out those who have no real chance in the first place. If they did, then someone else would nominate them for them. The reason why so many people were candidates was because so many were self-nominated.

 

[Immortal]

You can simply ask someone to nominate for you and they will, it doesnt really address anything.

Nomination cap is still preferable.

 

[LeeT911]

I think that self-nomination is important for the new players. It gives them a chance to be part of something. A new player who cannot nominate him/herself will never get to run in an election since no one else will nominate them.

 

[Comnenus]

I think that self-nomination is important for the new players. It gives them a chance to be part of something. A new player who cannot nominate him/herself will never get to run in an election since no one else will nominate them.

Exactly. I could well be wrong, but I doubt that KCCrusader would have a chance at being our Term 1 PD if he hadn't nominated himself.

Not all of us "newbies" want an office right of the bat, but for some it makes sense.

 

[KCCrusader]

Exactly. I could well be wrong, but I doubt that KCCrusader would have a chance at being our Term 1 PD if he hadn't nominated himself.

agreed :-D

 

[DaveShack]

Self-nomination: yes indeed! I got my first position that way.

Allowing multiple accepted nominations: This goes both ways. If we limit nominations to one, as soon as two experienced players accept for the same office, one is guaranteed to be out of office for that term. This might on the surface be an advantage for new players, but if the popular people can't go head to head for this reason, they might end up all running for different positions and winning all the positions and then the new players are left out.

 

[zorven]

I wholeheartedly support limiting a citizen to running in only one election. For the Term 1 elections, I only voted for candidates that were running for only one office.

 

[donsig]

Let's pass a law limiting citizen's to running for one office.