1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Ratification Poll Amendment to Article H (resubmitted)

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Demo Game V: Polls' started by Comnenus, Aug 8, 2004.

?

Should the amendment to Article H be ratified?

Poll closed Aug 12, 2004.
  1. Yes

    90.0%
  2. No

    10.0%
  3. Abstain

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Comnenus

    Comnenus AKA Kenshin

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Cadillac, MI
    This is a poll to determine if Article H. of the Constitution should be amended in the following manner.
    Code:
    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?
    Code:
    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.
     
  2. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    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.
     
  3. Zarn

    Zarn Le Républicain Catholique

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2002
    Messages:
    11,589
    Location:
    New Jersey/ Delaware Valley
    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.
     
  4. gert-janl

    gert-janl Alive!!!

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2002
    Messages:
    511
    Location:
    The Netherlands
    Definitely a YES!
     
  5. Black_Hole

    Black_Hole Deity

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2004
    Messages:
    3,424
    I encourage all citizens to vote yes in this poll.
     
  6. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    NAY I say. Limiting running for offices to undemocratic. Why should a limit be placed on public positions that you can run for?
     
  7. Comnenus

    Comnenus AKA Kenshin

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Cadillac, MI
    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.
     
  8. Gregski

    Gregski Mostly Harmless

    Joined:
    Aug 27, 2001
    Messages:
    329
    Location:
    Central Europe
    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.
     
  9. blackheart

    blackheart unenlightened

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2004
    Messages:
    8,633
    Location:
    Chicago
    We already restrict people to holding one office. Everyone is given a chance to participate, there is no requirement for running in elections.
     
  10. Comnenus

    Comnenus AKA Kenshin

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Cadillac, MI
    We need 11 more votes to meet quorum, folks. Please vote YES!
     
  11. Sir Donald III

    Sir Donald III Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,073
    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.
     
  12. Comnenus

    Comnenus AKA Kenshin

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Cadillac, MI
    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.
     
  13. msz4

    msz4 Peasant

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    74
    Location:
    Polska
    Yes Yes Yes Yes
     
  14. snipelfritz

    snipelfritz Crazy about the Demogame

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2003
    Messages:
    506
    Location:
    The Demogame Forums!!!
    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.
     
  15. Comnenus

    Comnenus AKA Kenshin

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2004
    Messages:
    432
    Location:
    Cadillac, MI
    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.
     
  16. Civanator

    Civanator Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2001
    Messages:
    2,865
    Location:
    Gone
    Being a Veteran, I vote NO, but it doesnt matter now.
     
  17. mhcarver

    mhcarver Newspaper Mogul

    Joined:
    Jun 21, 2004
    Messages:
    768
    Location:
    In the Press room
    we need 3 votes either way ,,,,,please?
     
  18. Sir Donald III

    Sir Donald III Emperor

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2004
    Messages:
    1,073
    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.
     
  19. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    And Article H has been ratified! Congrats! :thumbsup:
     
  20. donsig

    donsig Low level intermediary

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2001
    Messages:
    12,894
    Location:
    Rochester, NY
    Finally, a decent amendment. Why should I complain - after all, one out of three isn't bad.
     

Share This Page