Revolutions

[jumbo2002]

Just wanted to throw a few ideas out...

What if, when our nation declares an in-game revolution (I assume through majority vote of the public), then the current government falls -> new elections for each office.

Mixing things up further, if we enter a "martial law" revolution (say, Republic->Monarchy) then the Military Officer could become the new President by default and selects his own cabinet for the remainder of the current term (in order to keep the election schedule constant from month to month).

Another alternative: during Anarchy, no elections can be held. The President can take opinions from his new cabinet, but there can be no effective representation.

Just a few random ideas...

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Indeed we may decide on some special occurence in the game for that part.
Questions:

1)Anybody has ideas's on what should trigger a revolution?We can do something practicly or symbolicly here.
2)suggestion's on what the action's should be on such an event?

Suggestion will be heared on! THIS IS A DEMOCRACY.No mather what other people may say continualy.......... .

Please all ,give youre oppinion on it ,and then we will vote on it.
we have some time though to make a decission on this ,so give it youre thought.Try to think of a simple but effective system ,so that it's easable to implement.

Jumbo ,i will post my idea's on the matter later ,when i have seen enough suggestion's.I take no stance for the moment on it.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

If revolutions happen, they happen. There's no need for a set of rules

I'm sure the revolutionists will act in the best interests of the game, and not allow their actions to ruin it.

 

[.:KNAS:.]

Another alternative: during Anarchy, no elections can be held. The President can take opinions from his new cabinet, but there can be no effective representation.

i actually like this idea

 

[Pellaken]

If we have elections every day, things will get hectic. we should keep terms as is.

revoulitions shoud be voted on by our High Council {dep leaders, and the prez} and if a majority want to start the same type of government, we should switch, but no need for new elections. but thats just my opinion.

 

[Apollo]

I think this should be roleplayed a bit. Anybody can try to start a revolution. Now they will succeed in their revolution only if they have the support of the people (all citizens AND current cabinet members), which will be determined by them posting a poll when they call for the revolution. If the majority of the voters are for the revolution, then this person becomes the new president, and in the game the first thing they do is switch governments. Then while the governments are changing in the game they select their cabinet (who then select their deputies), and will serve out the rest of the current term. Until the government stabilizes in the game though nobody has any power except the new president and his/her selected cabinet.

Theoretically anybody can become the next ruler by starting a revolution, but in their poll they have to specify what government they are switching to, and only succeed if the majority in the poll vote yes. Also, they only retain their new position for the remainder of the current term. This will then involve a lot more than just someone standing up and taking power, because the majority have to want the new government at that time, want that specific leader, and the person starting the revolution might want to time it to give themselves the longest reign, or do it regardless of how long their term will last for the benefit of the nation.

 

[Pellaken]

compromise:

perhaps, anyone can start a rev. but the cabinet remins, only the president is overthrown, IF the person starting the rev wants the old prez removed

 

[Juize]

Yep, but there ALSO should be a anti-reward if the revolution doesn't work.
Otherwise, we would have revolutioners all the time, that are trying to be president.
Theres no risk

I have an idea: there should be three options; "yes", "no" and "no, wrong goverment type"

a) To start a revolution, at least over 50% must vote "Yes"
b) If over 25% votes "No", then the revolutionist would be banned for 1 week from The Game of Democracy.
(Is this possible without complete CFC Forums banning?)

This way, there'll be no tryers-of-their luck.

 

[knowltok]

I think we should not have revolutions of our democracy. We're too new at this to be throwing in this type of rule. Things could get mixed up in a hurry. However, if we do add in this type of rule it needs to consider the situation when a democracy colapses in the game due to civil unrest.

I say we stick with the terms as is until we know the ins and outs of normal power shifting before we add in revolutions.

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Revolution among the ranks .I can see it before me: One Witty revolutionary waiting with his pre-typed revolution thread waiting on the message that republic has been researched ,wich would be know in front.No ,it would lead our country in grave trouble's.

Revolution's are a thing that we will have to do once and awhile. i've we make so much hassle around it ,it won't be constructive.

 

[Cunobelin Of Hippo]

Just let it happen guys! We all know that the first one is approaching quickly - and a certain misspelled bird will undoubtably be leading it...(Pellaken, for those not quick enough for my deadly wit )...and in the spirit of good roleplaying Alcibiaties and I shall enact the Anti-Zulu Cult's charter, specifically part three, section eight, subsript iv, or that pertaining to actions by the cult in response to Zulus discovered within! At that point, we shall declare Mr. Pellaken to be a Zulullian spy, drag him off kicking and screaming, and have him shot If you guys don't like that, then you all say so (petition the Prez!) and we'll be forced to bring back the rebel (from the dead! ), and as a result of our actions, AoA and I would be seen in a negative light and probably lose our posts in the next election!

See? Just let it happen

(Note that the above plan was in no way authorized by Mr. Alcibiaties I acted alone)

 

[jumbo2002]

That's all true - and yeah, I can see how it could be disruptive to the flow of the game if revolutions mess with the power structure.

I still like my idea that there can be no voting during Anarchy, though.

 

[Pellaken]

Pellaken returnes, with the Zulu army, and subdues everyone. begins to rule over the nation with an iron fist... but is quickley killed be one of his concubines

 

[CornMaster]

Originally posted by jumbo2002
I still like my idea that there can be no voting during Anarchy, though.

That's a pretty good idea.

I'll discuss it with duck tomorrow.

The game will begin 10AM EST, just an FYI. At that time we will close polls, calculate results and start the game. Expect the first report 30 minutes thereafter.

 

[Apollo]

Originally posted by TheDuckOfFlanders
Revolution among the ranks .I can see it before me: One Witty revolutionary waiting with his pre-typed revolution thread waiting on the message that republic has been researched ,wich would be know in front.No ,it would lead our country in grave trouble's.

In the real world, a revolution won't work unless it has the support of the people. There are plenty of anarchists in the US who would like to overthrow the current government, but they can't, because they don't have the support of the majority. This is why in my post above I suggested the revolutionary post a poll, and people can vote on it. So the most trouble it would cause is have one extra thread cluttering up the forum, unless of course the majority agree and want to revolt.

See, even revolutions can be democratic!