law/Amendment regarding number of candidacies?

[eyrei]

The best thing about limiting candidacies to one per person is that with this many people, the government will likely change on a regular basis, which is certainly a good thing for the game.

 

[Comnenus]

Article H
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
[B]Vice-President[/B], Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
[B]Deputy[/B]) simultaneously.
          [B]1.No person shall accept the nomination to more than one position
            of leadership in any election where the two offices would be 
            held concurrently.
          2.A run-off election shall be required only in the event that the 
            top vote-getter in an election does not receive
                 a.At least 35% of the votes cast, and
                 b.A margin of victory of at least 5 percentage points over
                   their leading opponent.[/B]

The wording in bold type would amend the Article.
The amendment would replace the current Article H., which states:

Article H
No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor) simultaneously.

I know there are many differing opinions on this subject, so lets discuss them and try to arrive at a consensus.

The numbers are completely up in the air, but I had to start somewhere. And yes, I have made my opinions known on pluralities vs majorities. You'll notice that I also added Vice-President and Deputy to the list of offices. That would be to constitutionally address a current situation.

 

[Comnenus]

I've already seen a problem with the wording I used. Sub-paragraph 2b. should be amended to:

"A margin of victory of at least 5 percentage points over their leading opponent, except in the case where a majority of votes have been cast for the top vote-getter."

... or words to that effect.

 

[Provolution]

Comnenus, I agree, but would recommend setting the percentage to 30 %, as we still have many candidates.

 

[Comnenus]

It probably does not need to be said, but I'll state the obvious anyway, this does not apply to the current election.

 

[Comnenus]

Comnenus, I agree, but would recommend setting the percentage to 30 %, as we still have many candidates.

My reasoning for 35% was to put it above 1/3 of the electorate. However, lets hear opinions on the percentage and we can then decide.

 

[superpelon]

I agree to the Amendments proposed by Comnenus. As i said in another thread the idea of one person-two posts is something that doesnt sit well with me.

The 35% (more than 1/3) sounds good. Since the number of voting citizens isnt the as large as most electoral codes are made for, the 35% (in practice a 1/3+1) is fine by me.

 

[LeeT911]

I agree with what Commenus wrote above. However, if we limit nominations to one per person, stating the Deputy position becomes redundant, since a person can only run in one election, they cannot be both Deputy and something else. I realize this is because of the current situation, but since this will not apply to the current election, we might as well keep it as clean as possible. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to just leave it there in the event that the 1 nomination/person rule needs to bo overturned (due to low participation for example).

I would also like to suggest that an exception to the nomination rule be made for the Justice Deparment. In other words, someone who is running in the Justice Department can run for all three positions. This would prevent a case where person A loses to person B by one vote for CJ, but is not on the Judiciary even though the PD and JA have much fewer votes. Obviously a large number of people wanted person A in the justice system.

I do not know if this can be implemented on the forum, but my suggestion would be to have all the candidates for the judicial positions in one vote, and have every citizen vote for three of them. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election gets to choose which position he/she will fill (CJ, JA, PD); the one with the second most votes gets to choose from the remaining two; and the third place finisher takes the final position.

 

[Comnenus]

... if we limit nominations to one per person, stating the Deputy position becomes redundant, since a person can only run in one election, they cannot be both Deputy and something else. I realize this is because of the current situation, but since this will not apply to the current election, we might as well keep it as clean as possible. On the other hand, perhaps it would be better to just leave it there in the event that the 1 nomination/person rule needs to bo overturned (due to low participation for example).

Perhaps we could change it to "no person shall accept the nomination or appointment to more than one position of leadership in any term where the two offices would be held concurrently"

... my suggestion would be to have all the candidates for the judicial positions in one vote, and have every citizen vote for three of them. The candidate with the most votes at the end of the election gets to choose which position he/she will fill (CJ, JA, PD); the one with the second most votes gets to choose from the remaining two; and the third place finisher takes the final position.

I could accept this, or some form of it. I am not certain if this would be the right Article to put it in or not.

 

[LeeT911]

Perhaps we could change it to "no person shall accept the nomination or appointment to more than one position of leadership in any term where the two offices would be held concurrently"

Good point. We still haven't determined if deputies are going to be appointed or if they will be the runner-up of the elections. In any event, I support this change.

I could accept this, or some form of it. I am not certain if this would be the right Article to put it in or not.

I have looked through the Constitution, and I have seen no article that details the necessary protocols for the electoral process. Are the rules governing elections going to be in some form of lower law? Or should they be a part of the Constitution? In fact, are there even any written rules on the elections?

These questions are not aimed specifically at Commenus, anyone who knows is welcome to answer.

 

[Cyc]

Again, I don't like numbered items in an Article of the Constitution, but as they make clarification much easier for our discussions, I'll drop the point. I strongly disagree with #2. I feel the only time we should have run-off elections is when there is a tie for first and/or second place in the original or subsequent election. The second place tie would be pending on the legislation concerning Deputies and how they attain Office.

Both the Article and item #1 are spot on and well written.

 

[Comnenus]

I strongly disagree with #2. I feel the only time we should have run-off elections is when there is a tie for first and/or second place in the original or subsequent election. The second place tie would be pending on the legislation concerning Deputies and how they attain Office.

Point of clarification, is this a personal opinion or a legal opinion, ie, is it open to debate?

 

[zorven]

I think point 1 could be read to say that I am locked into the first nomination I accept. How about:

1) A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one nomination in any election cycle. 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.

I do not support point 2 at all. The only run-off elections should be when the is a tie for 1st or 2nd place in an election.

edit: thanks to Cyc for pointing out that I do not support point 2.

 

[Cyc]

Point of clarification, is this a personal opinion or a legal opinion, ie, is it open to debate?

This is definitely a personal opinion. I will make it very clear if I feel I need to make an official ruling. You will probably not see this out side of the Judicial thread. But then again, you might.

 

[Cyc]

I think point 1 could be read to say that I am locked into the first nomination I accept. How about:

1) A citizen is limited to accepting no more than one nomination in any election cycle. 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.

I do support point 2 at all. The only run-off elections should be when the is a tie for 1st or 2nd place in an election.

Good item #1, zorven. I remember you proposed this last game. It would probably be more encompassing than the one posted above. I say let's use this one, as it covers the same point as the other plus more. Plus allows a back door for a newbie who might change their mind.

Also, I believe the last sentance should be saying "I do NOT, rather than I DO". Am I correct?

 

[Octavian X]

What I find interesting is that it is assumed that one must have a position in the government. So what if some people get left out of the government? This game is about the nation as a whole. I will stress the point that one does not need to have an elected position to make a difference in this game. If someone losses out at the elections, that's fine. There's always next term, and in the intervening time, they can still actively participate.

One person, one nomination. Seriously, why take a job when you can just sit back and make everyone else do the work for you?

 

[zorven]

Excellent point Octavian X. It has often been someone not in government that has had a large impact on how the game played out.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Why don't we simplify the Article H amendment to read the following:

Article H.   No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
              Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
              Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall accept the nomination to more 
              than one elected position.

If this is acceptable, we can cover the run-off mechanics of the election in yet-to-be-ratified Article G. This makes more sense since Article G defines the electoral term itself while Article H here merely imposes restrictions on the electoral process.

I am working on Article G next.

 

[Comnenus]

What I find interesting is that it is assumed that one must have a position in the government. So what if some people get left out of the government? This game is about the nation as a whole. I will stress the point that one does not need to have an elected position to make a difference in this game. If someone losses out at the elections, that's fine. There's always next term, and in the intervening time, they can still actively participate.

One person, one nomination. Seriously, why take a job when you can just sit back and make everyone else do the work for you?

Absolutely. I didn't run for an office. Didn't want to my first time out because I would rather learn the ropes. And still, I made my share of mistakes here. But still I'm doin' stuff. I'll just leave the really hard work to the masochists.

BTW, I just got off work. I'll be working on the updates for this thread soon.

 

[zorven]

Why don't we simplify the Article H amendment to read the following:

Article H.   No person shall hold multiple positions of leadership (President,
              Vice-President, Department Leader, Judiciary, Provincial Governor,
              Deputy) simultaneously, nor shall accept the nomination to more 
              than one elected position.

If this is acceptable, we can cover the run-off mechanics of the election in yet-to-be-ratified Article G. This makes more sense since Article G defines the electoral term itself while Article H here merely imposes restrictions on the electoral process.

I am working on Article G next.

I have the same problem with this as I stated above: it can be read to limit you to the first nomination you accept - you can't change your mind. If you want an amendment to look like this proposal, it would have to read more like: :

"nor shall be allowed to be a candidate in more than one election in any given election cycle."