OFFICIAL DISCUSSION: Nominations, Debates and Elections

[classical_hero]

Are we ever going to discuss how the polling for elections is going to run, or are we just going to stay with the first past the post, as the winner, and not necessarily being over 60% of the vote. We need to change this so that the winner must be more than 50% so that the winner has a mandate to run.

 

[Black_Hole]

lets use relative starting times, I actually liked the debate threads this game(would have been even better if they were in citizen forum), but it does matter how many positions we have...

 

[Chieftess]

1 debate thread per branch?

This option is a bad idea. Reasons:

1 - It pushes nomination threads to Page #2.
2 - It makes the front demogame forum messy.
3 - It doesn't make sense to have them when there's only 1 canidate running for a position.

Debates should go in the citizens forum. Debates should only be started when a 2nd canidate accepts their nomination in the respected nomination thread.

BTW, we should start wrapping up these ideas into a standard format, ready for polling.

First to choose which one to use, then a final acceptance poll of that part of the constitution.

 

[blackheart]

Are we ever going to discuss how the polling for elections is going to run, or are we just going to stay with the first past the post, as the winner, and not necessarily being over 60% of the vote. We need to change this so that the winner must be more than 50% so that the winner has a mandate to run.

There's the problem of what if more than 3 candidates were running for one position? If many candidates are running, it should be expected that no one person will get a majority.

 

[Strider]

There's the problem of what if more than 3 candidates were running for one position? If many candidates are running, it should be expected that no one person will get a majority.

Agreed, setting a quorum on elections would be a waste of time. They've worked this way sense the first demogame, and we haven't had almost any problems with the basic system. Lets just stick with it.

 

[Civanator]

Quorums in the Elections are pointless. A simple majority has worked since the first DG.

About a candidate winning 2 elections:

If one does win 2 elections, that person must choose one office to stay with, and the next runner up in the office that wasn't chosen will become the winner. If the second election is uncontested, a minister will be appointed by the President(Or whoever the top dog is), as it will be taken as a vacant position.

Just my thoughts on it.

 

[classical_hero]

Quorums in the Elections are pointless. A simple majority has worked since the first DG.

It is not the WOTP. If we continue on this path then we are denying a part of our constitution. I'll give a tutorial of how preferential voting works so people can understand it in practice.

 

[Black_Hole]

It is not the WOTP. If we continue on this path then we are denying a part of our constitution. I'll give a tutorial of how preferential voting works so people can understand it in practice.

so if a certain number of people dont vote in an election, then that election doesnt count? well that could be a problem when we have only 2 officeholers but 10 contested elections...

 

[classical_hero]

so if a certain number of people dont vote in an election, then that election doesnt count? well that could be a problem when we have only 2 officeholers but 10 contested elections...

No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those who have voted and yet we do not have a clear majority for the winner. I would like that situation to be solved. There are two option that I have put up that will fix it. But it seems that the failure of the status quo will win.

 

[Black_Hole]

No, that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about those who have voted and yet we do not have a clear majority for the winner. I would like that situation to be solved. There are two option that I have put up that will fix it. But it seems that the failure of the status quo will win.

i dont like that, it is best if the person with most votes wins. However if abstain gets the most votes I wouldnt mind if there was a new election...

 

[Ashburnham]

Classic, that's simply not the way real governments run. There's no such thing as a "mandatory mandate" for a candidate to be elected. Looking at most real-life governments, you will see that the winning candidates rarely win a true majority in elections--and having 60% of the vote is almost unheard of. Just look at the most recent British election, where the Labor party was said to have "crushed" the competition with 40% of the vote.

The simple fact is, we have to take the candidate who wins the most votes, whether it's 51% or 5%. That's the way it's done. You can cook up some elaborate system to find who gets the "mandate" if you'd like, but it won't be realistic-- and it certainly won't be practical.

 

[DaveShack]

If there were any past instances of a leader whose instructions were ignored as having no mandate, then there would be an argument for requiring a strict majority, however there have not been any problems. If it's not broken, then don't fix it.

 

[YNCS]

Plurality victories are commonplace in RL, especially when two strong candidates and several weak ones are running for election.

 

[Civanator]

Classical Hero:
Elections show the WOTP clearly. You vote for who you want, and that is your say in the election. How is that denying anyone a part of the constitution? And which part is it? Technically it isn't denying anyone anything in our constitution seeing we don't even have one in place, and if you are working off the DG5 constitution, then your arguments will hold no ground because we won't be using the DG5 constitution.

 

[classical_hero]

Classical Hero:
Elections show the WOTP clearly. You vote for who you want, and that is your say in the election. How is that denying anyone a part of the constitution? And which part is it? Technically it isn't denying anyone anything in our constitution seeing we don't even have one in place, and if you are working off the DG5 constitution, then your arguments will hold no ground because we won't be using the DG5 constitution.

It is time for mee to give that tutorial I have promised. I will set up a poll that people cn vote in and plus they will have to PM me the way they want there preferance to be handed out. It is better to see this work in practice rather than theory.

 

[DaveShack]

It is time for mee to give that tutorial I have promised. I will set up a poll that people cn vote in and plus they will have to PM me the way they want there preferance to be handed out. It is better to see this work in practice rather than theory.

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

 

[classical_hero]

Care to elaborate? I'm not sure what you're referring to.

I will. But please vote in this poll so I can elaborate on what I am getting at. Participation in this poll is great so that the tutorial can work well.

 

[Chieftess]

Poll has been started.. This discussion will now close. Debate on the wording of this article will start on the 15th, when the poll closes.