Submission of Article G of the Constitution

[Sir Donald III]

This poll was created to approve the adoption of the following legislation into the Constitution. If this Legislation is approved, it will become Article G. It basically states the general provisions for term lengths, Deputies, appointments, and runoff polls. Please read this legislation carefully.

Article G:
1. All elected positions shall have a fixed term of one month, with each position being granted to the candidate who receives the largest number of votes in that election. In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only.
2. In elections in the Executive and Legislative Branches, a Deputy is appointed by the Official-Elect. The Official-Elect must first consider the immediate Runner-Up for the position of Deputy, who has the right to accept or refuse the appointment if he/she so chooses. If there is a tie for Second Place in an Executive or Legislative Office, the Official-Elect shall choose his/her order of Preference among the tied for the Deputy Position.
3. The President shall appoint a citizen to any office left vacant at the end of the runoff period, or the start of the new term should there be no runoff. If a runoff was conducted but ended in a second tie, the President shall cast the deciding vote, unless the Office of President is in Runoff, in which case the outgoing Chief Justice shall cast the deciding vote for that election only. All elected positions left in absentia for six(6) days without prior notice shall be considered vacant, and a replacement shall be appointed by the President, who will first consider the Deputy of that Department who has the right to accept or refuse.
4. All appointments to elected offices will be subject to a vote of No Confidence, requiring a majority of Yes votes, with at least 51% of the census casting votes. A vote of No Confidence can be brought by any citizen after a discussion period of at least twenty-four hours.

Please Vote one of the following options ~
YES - You want to adopt this Article for the Constitution
NO - You reject this Article
ABSTAIN - You have no opinion

This poll will remain open for 4 days
Relevant discussion can be found Here.

 

[mhcarver]

I voted yes, I agree with the content of the article, though I do have one question that doesn't effect my vote: does section 4 allow for the people to put a vote of no confidence on a sitting deputy that has accepted the position?

 

[ravensfire]

No

Yes, I am going against my normal stance.

This is a poorly worded, convoluted proposal. It crams too much in the Constitution, significant parts of this should be in the Code of Laws.

I urge all citizens to vote No on this proposal, and send it back to the drafting board so a good proposal can be presented to you. Demand more from those crafting laws - this belongs as an example of how NOT to craft a law. I am disappointed that the Judiciary did not take a more active role in crafting laws in the correct books.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sir Donald III]

I voted yes, I agree with the content of the article, though I do have one question that doesn't effect my vote: does section 4 allow for the people to put a vote of no confidence on a sitting deputy that has accepted the position?

In my personal opinion, the "No Confidence" section applies to deputies only when they are promoted, either temporarily or permanantly, to their Superior Minister's office due to an absence or vacancy. Also IMO, the "No Confidence" could be called after evaluation of the deeds done by said Deputy when said Deputy was substituting for the Minister.

However, I am not a member of the Judiciary. So my opinion probably means squat.

 

[ravensfire]

In my personal opinion, the "No Confidence" section applies to deputies only when they are promoted, either temporarily or permanantly, to their Superior Minister's office due to an absence or vacancy. Also IMO, the "No Confidence" could be called after evaluation of the deeds done by said Deputy when said Deputy was substituting for the Minister.

However, I am not a member of the Judiciary. So my opinion probably means squat.

Something that should have been part of the law.

Vote No!

-- Ravensfire

 

[Rik Meleet]

I have to agree with Raven here.

 

[Cyc]

All you armchair lawyers who sit back and do nothing nbut ***** should really learn how to do some work. This proposal has been around a long time and I don't remember either one of you making any helpful hints in its making. Your rejection is unbelievable.

Oh, wait a minutre. This is the demogame. I forgot.

 

[ravensfire]

All you armchair lawyers who sit back and do nothing nbut ***** should really learn how to do some work. This proposal has been around a long time and I don't remember either one of you making any helpful hints in its making. Your rejection is unbelievable.

Oh, wait a minutre. This is the demogame. I forgot.

That you, as Chief Justice, were participating in this discussion should have been enough to prevent this travesty from occuring. That you then come and whine when I present an arguement against the proposal is disheartening. Citizens - take note - this is your Chief Justice complaining about people exercising their right to free speech! Oh wait, this is Cyc. I forgot.

I could care less how long this proposal has been in the making, or how much help anyone did. The proposal is bad law.

I again urge all citizens to vote no to this proposal, and send it back so we can create a better law, set up to the core concepts of our legal system.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

People, as your Chief Justice, I can assure you that this is the best wording for this Legislation at this time. Last game, when ravensfire was actually involved in the game (besides trying to make legislative polls fail), actually did some work with the laws. When he put up a poll, all the naysayers, who never did squat for the writing of the legislation would come out in opposition of the measure. This would infuriate ravensfire.

The above mentioned situation is the only reason that ravensfire is causing the same situations in DG5. This is how he gets back at the armchair lawyers of last game. He refused to help in the writing by not participating (whether constructively or critically) until the poll is posted. Then he comes out and tries to ruin the work of others.

People, meet ravensfire. You've witnessed his actions thus far in the game, and hopefully this puts a nail in the coffin.

PLEASE VOTE YES ON THIS POLL!

 

[blackheart]

Ravensfire, if you think this is a poorly worded law then please do reword it and propose it to the people. Critisizing something in the polls is unsound tactics, especially because there was debates about it. So less shenanigans and more constructivism please.

I am going to vote yes.

 

[eyrei]

Moderator Action: That will be enough of the little flamewar you guys have going. Eyrei.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[Black_Hole]

i voted yes, it may not be perfect but it is way better than having no law in place covering the things this one does

 

[superpelon]

voted YES.

say no to FLAMING. Say YES to participation in the demogame.

peace

 

[mhcarver]

No offense but at the rate this article has been going over the past day or two it is heading for defeat due to a lack of Quorom(it's still 38 votes counting abstain right?)

 

[Cyc]

Oh, well. Rik Meleet and ravensfire will take care of it.

 

[Immortal]

Fine by me, let them rewrite the law themselves than cyc.

Ravensire: does it make you feel good to sit back and do nothing after you vote against amendments or are you some sort of sadist who just likes having people pissed off at him?

 

[ravensfire]

Fine by me, let them rewrite the law themselves than cyc.

Ravensire: does it make you feel good to sit back and do nothing after you vote against amendments or are you some sort of sadist who just likes having people pissed off at him?

Ahh, the disilluised citizens strikes out in anger. Why thanks, Immortal. Having you upset with me is quite useless - direct your anger at someone that actually cares about it, and might be able to do something about it.

Good. Vent. You'll not bother me.

Nothing here makes me feel good. This was a poorly written law that shouldn't have been sent to the Judiciary for review. It is, however, a valid law, so they were entirely correct in passing it on for approval. Some who were involved in creating this law should have done a better job in working with the main person behind this law. That disappoints me. The personal attacks for voting my mind, for exercising my right to free speech disappoints me.

The game was started before the ruleset was complete. After the debacle of DG4, when the few of us who worked out butts off on the ruleset saw it savaged, ridiculed and misued, I refuse to have anything beyond minimal interaction with such matters. I read the discussions, vote on those few polls that respect my wish for privacy, and realize my strengths do not lie in this initial phase of the game, but in the later stage, in infrastructure and development.

So be bitter, Immortal. Then look at the law, look at it. Think about how the Constitution should be structured, and how a lower body of law should interact with it. This proposal fails both of those tests - I'm releaved to see it defeated by voter apathy.

Don't try to lay a guilt trip on me, Immortal. I quite frankly don't give a darn about you or your feelings. I really don't. Call a 900 number where they might fake interest in you.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Immortal]

Feel better now?

 

[DaveShack]

Ravensfire, I have a question for you. Aside from how the law is structured, which I'm sure we all know by now how you feel, there is the issue of the substance. How do you feel on the substance of this proposed article?

Also, you are aware that without this article being passed, there is technically no requirement to end the 1st term, right? I don't think it would come to that, but there may be a sharp legal mind or two who can make something of the lack of "fixed term" language in the constitution.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Also, you are aware that without this article being passed, there is technically no requirement to end the 1st term, right? I don't think it would come to that, but there may be a sharp legal mind or two who can make something of the lack of "fixed term" language in the constitution.

Gotta ask yourself, Dave. What would Dubya do? I think we'd have ourselves a one-term game.

Sorry, Dave, couldn't resist...........