Ratification Poll Amendment to Article H (resubmitted)

[Comnenus]

This is a poll to determine if Article H. of the Constitution should be amended in the following manner.

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

Should article H. of the Constitution be amended as follows?

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]nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the
              commencement of the general election[/B].

The text in bold indicates the wording in Article H which would be changed if the Amendment is ratified.

To see the discussion of this amendment and how it was arrived at, please click here.

There are 3 choices in this poll:
Yes (ratify)
No (defeat)
Abstain

This is a public poll which will remain open for 96 hours, after which time the amendment shall be considered to be Ratified or Defeated.

 

[DaveShack]

I am strongly opposed to limiting the number of accepted nominations, and slightly opposed to limiting someone from being a leader of one office and deputy of another, however will reserve my vote for later.

 

[Zarn]

I fully support this move. I believe this will help better the government overall in strength as it will have more people inside of it, instead of just elites with possible multiple positions.

 

[gert-janl]

Definitely a YES!

 

[Black_Hole]

I encourage all citizens to vote yes in this poll.

 

[blackheart]

NAY I say. Limiting running for offices to undemocratic. Why should a limit be placed on public positions that you can run for?

 

[Comnenus]

I am strongly opposed to limiting the number of accepted nominations, and slightly opposed to limiting someone from being a leader of one office and deputy of another, however will reserve my vote for later.

There was quite a bit of discussion on whether to limit the number of accepted nominations or not. In the end it was decided that we would limit it to one nomination per person. As written, it does not mean that a person who has accepted a nomination cannot be nominated for another position. If they accept the second nomination, then they must resign the first nomination. In the end, of course, this is up to the voters to decide. We did our best with a contentious issue.

 

[Gregski]

I support this amendment as this will require people to totally declare their loyalties. There are some very talented people out there who could run the entire game on their own without any help whatsoever. That's not the point of the demogame however and everyone must be given a chance to participate. After all, you cannot be committed to more than one role in any term.

 

[blackheart]

I support this amendment as this will require people to totally declare their loyalties. There are some very talented people out there who could run the entire game on their own without any help whatsoever. That's not the point of the demogame however and everyone must be given a chance to participate. After all, you cannot be committed to more than one role in any term.

We already restrict people to holding one office. Everyone is given a chance to participate, there is no requirement for running in elections.

 

[Comnenus]

We need 11 more votes to meet quorum, folks. Please vote YES!

 

[Sir Donald III]

I agree with this ammendment in the short and middle terms. If we have a large number of Provinces, I may offer an ammendment, but that should be quite later on.

 

[Comnenus]

Thanks for your vote, Sir D3. I'm sure the Constitution will always need to be looked at as we face new challenges and look forward to your ideas.

 

[msz4]

Yes Yes Yes Yes

 

[snipelfritz]

Hypothetical Situation:

So lets say there is someone running for two positions. Say Minister of FA and President. He has accepted nominations for both. I vote for them in the race for minister. He then wins the election for President and accepts. By the current article. He is then void from the Minister of FA election, even if he won, and my vote was completely worthless and didn't make a difference.

Don't let this happen. Vote yes.

 

[Comnenus]

Under the current article that is right, sniplefritz. That is why everyone should vote for this amendment. If someone wants to run for office, they should choose what is most important to them, and not play the lottery hoping to win some election, any election. If people are more concerned with playing the game, than in playing power politics, one office nomination is plenty. This amendment is a reaction to the free for all we had with the last election. If, at some time in the future, people determine the situation has changed, they can always try to amend the Constitution again.

 

[Civanator]

Being a Veteran, I vote NO, but it doesnt matter now.

 

[mhcarver]

we need 3 votes either way ,,,,,please?

 

[Sir Donald III]

If you are holding out because you feel that there will be too many positions by Term 4-5 and not enough takers: Remember that I have personally stated that I may seek an ammendment once we have enough Provinces. This version fits our needs in the early days. Let us pass this version now, so that we can evolve this to our needs later.

 

[Cyc]

And Article H has been ratified! Congrats!

 

[donsig]

Finally, a decent amendment. Why should I complain - after all, one out of three isn't bad.