Presidential Candidacy Proposal

[amadeus]

This is just an idea I'm thinking up here at school.

First:

Every person sends in their nominations for who they want. Self-nominations acceptable, etc.

Second:

Each Presidential nominee makes a statement, or perhaps takes a "Town Hall" meeting to discuss their issues.

Third:

Primaries are held to select a fewer number of candidates (to avoid the problem of running in to having a tie)

Fourth:

Debates are held between the candidates, depending on the number of candidates.

Fifth:

Elections. There will be no electoral college for a candidate. All votes are equal, with citizenship of the Democracy game. Election "day" lasts for 36-48 hours.

Extras:

All elections will be supervised by an election supervisory comittee.

 

[CornMaster]

Not bad....not bad.

This is how it works now:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) from current cabinet positions only. (7 possible nominees) I (MOD Liasion) runs the election, opens/closes the polls etc... Votes last 2 days (48 hours)



Now....I like some of your ideas, and some I find impractable.
With Your, and My ideas combined, I propose this:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) but only from cabinet members (I could extend this to Deputy Leaders as well. But not anyone. The reason is that cabinet members have an idea how things are run....thus better suited for the position. Plus in real life someone doesn't get elected without having some political background. (Exception, Jessie Ventura )
I (MOD Liasion) Still runs the election. Starting and closing of Polls. A debate is a good idea! A civilian organization could be formed to construct the questions for the nominees. Then I (MOD Liasion) would conduct the debate. No one would be allow to post in the topic except for the participates and myself. We could allow Primaries if necessary. Elections are still 2 days long. And there isn't really a need for an electorial comittee as that is my job as MOD liasion. If there is a tie, we have a vote-off of the two tied indiviuals.

So...what do you think?

 

[.:KNAS:.]

is there a limit as to how many elections one can take partin, i.e i run for ALL cabinet spots? i think we should limit it to one or maybe two..........

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
is there a limit as to how many elections one can take partin, i.e i run for ALL cabinet spots? i think we should limit it to one or maybe two..........

Ohhh...good question.

I would say 2 Max. And if one person wins two positions then they must forfit one the the runner up, who would become leader. With 3rd place becoming Deputy.

What do you think of that? Added to what I already proposed?

 

[Apollo]

While having debates for all cabinet positions in addition to the presidency would be a bit much, I think there should be some way where those running for cabinet positions get to say something in favor of themselves. Maybe start a thread where each candidate running gets to have one post that describes how they will be a good person to elect. There could be either one thread for each position or one thread for all positions together, depending on how many people are running.

If we do any of these debate/posting things, then we'll probably have to change the time frame for nominations and elections.

Edit: Corn's post above mine sounds good for that dilemma.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

seems allright to me

ps. since this was such a short post ill put in a little joke i made up myself; personX is so stupid, that when he gets a mail from the civ fanatics forum mailer he replys

yeah i know it sux.............

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by .:KNAS:.
ps. since this was such a short post ill put in a little joke i made up myself; personX is so stupid, that when he gets a mail from the civ fanatics forum mailer he replys

yeah i know it sux.............

That's not that bad! I'm sure it happens.

Let's get a joke from the Annuals of Cat, Dog, and Parrot.

A Cat, Dog and Parrot go into a bar.
The Cat says to the bartender, "I'll have a beer".
The Dog says to the bartender, "I'll have a coke."
The Parrot says to the bartender, "I'll have a "White Wine."
The Bartender says, "Sorry, no pets allowed."

Anyway...to stay on topic. Apollo....I think it's a little overkill to have a thread for everyone running. But one big petitioning and promoting thread could do it!

 

[Sixchan]

If you can run for two seats, can you make two posts in the promoting thread, or do you do one longer one?

BTW, when are the first elections?

 

[CornMaster]

The first elections will begin Jan. 8th. The new term begins the 10th of every month....(so roughly 30 days per term.) Nominations and promotion begins 5 days before.....thus Jan 3rd.

 

[amadeus]

Originally posted by CornMaster
Now....I like some of your ideas, and some I find impractable.
With Your, and My ideas combined, I propose this:
The President is nominated (Self Nominations too) but only from cabinet members (I could extend this to Deputy Leaders as well. But not anyone. The reason is that cabinet members have an idea how things are run....thus better suited for the position. Plus

So...what do you think?

Owch. Just nominations from cabinet members? That I really disagree with...

I mean, look at people like Ronald Reagan, he became governor of the largest state in the U.S. with no political background other than his own study. Whether you like him or not, it is a pretty amazing feat to be able to do that.

Or maybe, I didn't explain my ideas right: I meant people nominate, and then they vote on who they want to be their candidate. So there's almost like two elections (and there really, when you think about it, is)

 

[Knight-Dragon]

In real life, an elected governor will have the state govt to run things. In our game, if our new president is lame and doesn't know his role, the game will grind to a stop ...... Cos the whole game is actually being played out on his comp. If he fails in leading the game due to inexperience, that's pretty bad.

Maybe for the future when everybody is clear on all aspects of the game, but for now, continuity is more important.

 

[andycapp]

I agree with rmsharpe's proposal that nominations for President should be allowed for ALL citizens other wise our fledgling democracy won't be very democratic - there would be a ruling class and an under class - ripe conditions for a revolution and civil war.

Instead of allowing self nomination have the requirement that a candidate must be nominated and seconded by others. This will have the effect of limiting the number of people standing for election and and be a reality check for those with Presidential ambitions. It will also involve lobbying others regarding your suitability thus introducing a very real element of the democratic process.

 

[Knight-Dragon]

Anybody can nominate the Presidential candidate; just that the nominee must be fr the present cabinet, no? For reasons of continuity?

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by Knight-Dragon
Anybody can nominate the Presidential candidate; just that the nominee must be fr the present cabinet, no? For reasons of continuity?

Excatly. For example.....if Fayadi decided to challenge for president in the beginning...and didn't show up for 5 days (like he didn't) then the game grinds to a halt.

I'd prefer that the Presidential Canadiates have experience. I'll extend the possible Canadiates to Deputy leaders as well....but in this case....still some of them have no shown up yet.

So it's a gray area.

 

[Pellaken]

I like the cabinet idea. otherwise, I might win

if someone votes for me, but everyone else votes for themselvs, I would win.

in the USA, all you have to do is fight in the military, and you are automatically in. even though this is a very bad thing in most other countries, the USA is unique politically {any non-americans can back me up on that} thats not nessacarley a bad thing though.

in Canada, and most other countries, you only become leader after years and years and years of political servace. our youngest PM was Joe Clark, a Progressive Conservative {Conservative for those outside the USA, Liberal for those in the USA} he was 39 when he was elevted in the 70's. He was in officer for about a year. since, he has returned after the PC Party collapsed, and is now the leader again, but the party is no longer a first rate party. There used to be a 2 party system in Canada, the Liberals {democrats} and the Conservatives {between democrats and republicans}. a new Right wing party was started though, the Canadian Alliance {republican} and ever since only the Liberal Party has been elected. The current leader, and Prime Minister, Jean Cretien, is almost 70.

Well thats quite the lesson on canadian political history, but my point:

it takes a while to get to the top, and very rarley do you go from nothing to Prime Minsiter or President. infact, I do not remember it EVER happening. since we dont have real states with any real power, or a senate, the only 'government' we have is the Cabinet. therefore, I feel that its right that only Cabinet people can run. they should all be automatically nominated. but thats just my opinion

 

[knowltok]

***
I too am for limiting it to those with experience. I would hope it wouldn't be neccessary because the enlightened citizens of our great neation would want someone with a proven track record of experience and dependability. These qualities coupled with sound judgement are easily identified in the cabinet positions.

That said, I would posit one question. What about those in the future who are citizens at the time, but in the past had held high office?

I also agree that a person can run for two posts, but I think that should only be allowed for those running for president. Otherwise we may have quite a mess to sort out. It could concievably be possible for a Ministry to be held by a third or lower place candidate. This would be rare, but if someone wins two elections, and the second place person won a different election, all of a sudden we could have a person with 1 or 2 votes out of 40-50 running a ministry.

 

[andycapp]

I understand the desire of my fellow citizens (including those that hold cabinet office) to ensure that the position of President is filled with a person who has not only the capability but also the commitment to do the job and keep the game going at a steady pace.

However, it is a fallacy to argue that a person that holds a cabinet position has better credentials for the position of President than a mere citizen, because they have experience performing their cabinet role - we're not talking about the real world here.

A citizen who has been involved in the game and making regular contributions has just as much idea about the requirements of the Presidential position as anyone performing a cabinet role.

Surely the important criteria is whether a person has the knowledge, capability and commitment to perform the role and just as importantly can convince enough people that is so.

To limit the selection of President to those who already hold office is not just elitist and anti-democratic, more importantly such a limited field will preclude choice of the best available field of candidates.

This humble citizen wishes to make it clear that he has no interest in standing for the position of President, but could not sit idly by and watch the exclusion of my fellow citizens from the leadership of our (soon to be) great nation.

 

[amadeus]

As the Civ2 trade advisor said: "I concur, your excellency"

The system that candidates can only be current cabinet members seems very anti-democratic, IMO.

 

[CornMaster]

Not everyone shares those views....

I will extend the possible canadites to Deputy positions too....but not to everyone.

 

[andycapp]

Originally posted by CornMaster
Not everyone shares those views....

I will extend the possible canadites to Deputy positions too....but not to everyone.

No doubt, not everyone agrees on this issue, and because it is one of such fundamental principle to the way we operate as a democratic society why not put it to the vote in a poll.

Ironic isn't it Corn, that a good ol' lefty like yourself is acting as an autocrat to deny at least half of our citizens the right to go for the top job - perhaps we should rename this the 'partial democracy game'.