Ratification of a DG2 Constitution

[ravensfire]

The judiciary are elected positions, unless nobody runs for them in which case in the past they have been appointed. (which BTW means we need an initiative for appointments, hint nudge )

No, we need an initiative for ELECTIONS (broad hint).

-- Ravensfire

 

[Furius]

The way elections were handled for DP's seemed pretty damn good... Do you think that could be manhandled into a system for regular elections?

 

[donsig]

I may be going out on a limb here but I'd say we could hold judicial elections without an initiative (though an initiative would formalize things).

Appointments are another matter entirely. Just who would do the appointing?

 

[Furius]

Whoever is our head of state, I expect... (Assuming that's the same thing as this 'President' office which is bandied around?)

I mean the poor Head of state dosen't seem to have much in the way of personal power at the moment... And appointing judges is the sort of thing heads of state generally do...

If the judges aren't democratically elected, they may feel more able to hand down just rulings even if they are unpopular

 

[ordinaryguy]

I'll save this webpage and read it before voting and posting comments.

DaveShack, could you extend the poll deadline please?

 

[jdubdixon]

I know you've guys said that you dont want to change the constitution much from game to game, but I feel that this should pull away from the basic ideas of other constitution. I especially feel that the concept that for any office selection there should be any representives that take a vote for the people. Instead, I think that there should be no private votes for anything. Representive branch officails should be able to make there own decisions that they are granted or there should be no legaslative branch, but that citizens directly elect all officials.
(PS: If you have anything to say about these ideas don't be afraid to private message me or reply on the forum and promise a good logical debate for my ideas.)
PSS: this is my first DG and i was wondering how, or even if, political parties are part of the game

 

[chessplayer]

i voted because some of the terms are strange and ambiguous

 

[Furius]

@jdubdixon

It is possible that political parties could be part of this I believe... This was briefly mentioned in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=204607

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing with elected officers: Do you mean that we elect officials who get to make decisions without consulting the general public beforehand? If so then I must say that i think that such a system would exclude the majority of the players of the Demogame from having a part in the decision making process...

If you're proposing that they get to make theier own decisions, which can then be veto'd by the general populus/demos, then I believe that that is indeed a very good idea...

 

[ordinaryguy]

DaveShack, could you extend the poll deadline please?

never mind

I have read the constitution and I think that it is pretty good.

However, I feel that this part should be changed even though I support the constitution.

Quote:
Should two or more candidates tie for the most votes, as many runoff elections shall be held as needed to resolve the election, as further defined by law.

This doesn't state that only the tied candidates would be in the runoff, although it is assumed

 

[jdubdixon]

Also, I'm not sure I understand what you are proposing with elected officers: Do you mean that we elect officials who get to make decisions without consulting the general public beforehand? If so then I must say that i think that such a system would exclude the majority of the players of the Demogame from having a part in the decision making process...

If you're proposing that they get to make theier own decisions, which can then be veto'd by the general populus/demos, then I believe that that is indeed a very good idea...

I was saying the opposite of the first part and I agree and mabey I misunderstood the part about private elections but i thought that that was what the constitution was saying. I was saying that second part but now relised that it was to implied above, so sorry about that.

 

[ravensfire]

never mind

I have read the constitution and I think that it is pretty good.

However, I feel that this part should be changed even though I support the constitution.

ordinaryguy,

Your concern about runoffs was mentioned earlier, and the preferred method to handle it was noted here.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

The thing about "private elections" just means that election polls must NOT be marked "public". Meaning anyone can vote in them, and nobody can see your vote.

Generally speaking, we don't allow any polls directly concerning an individual to be public.

 

[Flotorius]

I've voted "no" because I do not feel that an amendment should be easier to get than the original constitution. (G2) The necessary majorities should be equal.


As for the runoff election(s), it might be interesting to have all the candidates back in the race. Since we seem to be pushing a relative majority-decision as the general election patter, so why not differ from the real world's way there as well.

 

[ordinaryguy]

ordinaryguy,

Your concern about runoffs was mentioned earlier, and the preferred method to handle it was noted here.

ok. I must have missed that post. sorry about cross-post

 

[ravensfire]

ok. I must have missed that post. sorry about cross-post

Different page - stuff gets missed - no problem!

That concept is core to this idea - the Constitution is the broad framework, has has lots of areas that are filled in by the initiatives that we propose and pass. The election section is a great example - it just says we have them. Doesn't say when, doesn't say how, just that we have them, and that only one person can win.

Those details - the when and the how, are to be filled in by some type of an Election Initiative. Combine that with a Starting Offices initiative, and we're much closer to starting!

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Poll closed with a final tally of 32-8-2. (76%, 19%, 2%)

 

[Furius]

So we have a constitution now, right?

Yay!

How do we celebrate?

 

[730195]

I'm a complete noob to the demo game and I'm just a little curious about Article E.

- Do you think this will actually prevent people from playing the save multiple times to see what works?
- Is there some mechanism I'm not seeing that actually inhibits playing the save w/o authorization?
- No punishment is specified for violations. What would happen if you believed (or even knew) that someone had done some exploring of options?

 

[jimkatalanos]

We have a constitution.YEAH!!!

 

[DaveShack]

I'm a complete noob to the demo game and I'm just a little curious about Article E.

- Do you think this will actually prevent people from playing the save multiple times to see what works?
- Is there some mechanism I'm not seeing that actually inhibits playing the save w/o authorization?
- No punishment is specified for violations. What would happen if you believed (or even knew) that someone had done some exploring of options?

Typically it works, but there have been occasional lapses (see below).

We could build a special DG mod and only distribute it to authorized people, but that would also prevent people from innocently looking at the save.

There have been isolated incidents where someone has explored and posted the results of that exploration. Usually your friendly mods remove the evidence as soon as we notice it, to avoid contaminating the game, and take actions to stop the posting of more info, at least temporarily. How it goes from there is case by case, no point in speculating.