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

Term 1 - Chief Justice Elections

Discussion in 'Civ3 - Game of Democracy IV' started by GenMarshall, Dec 27, 2003.

?

Who will wear the Poofy Wig

Poll closed Dec 31, 2003.
  1. Ravensfire

    19 vote(s)
    48.7%
  2. Cyc

    20 vote(s)
    51.3%
  3. Abstain

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  1. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    The main reason that I would advocate the runoff election is that there is the most legal basis for it as a way to break the tie. However, perhaps we can find some way for it to work out with both Ravensfire and Cyc as co-CJ's. There is nothing specifically stated in the laws that we can't have co-leaders, so I would be willing to try this out if a good proposal can be made on that.
     
  2. Furiey

    Furiey No Longer Just Lurking

    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2003
    Messages:
    6,345
    Location:
    Bedfordshire UK
    As the laws assume 1 election for the Judiciary not 2, another possibility might be to declare both the CJ and AJ elections invalid and rerun them as 1.
     
  3. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    All candidates would need to withdraw in order to precipitate a new election.
     
  4. Rik Meleet

    Rik Meleet Top predator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    11,977
    Location:
    Nijmegen Netherlands
    Before we jump to conclusions; I've asked DZ to check whether illegal votes were cast. If so, there is most likely no tie anymore.

    And I'd also like to hear Ravensfire's Pov.
     
  5. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Also, I would like to point out that this election ended before the CoS section is ratified, and therefore should be considered to have been ratified ex post facto for this poll, and thus not apply.
     
  6. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    I have PMed Thunderfall regarding the DLs and will put some thought into a solution here.

    I will be back later today.
     
  7. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Bootstoots, this issue or this problem, in my eyes, is not about me. It's about doing the right thing. Speeding along with a run-off poll and anouncing Associate Judges before any conclusions have been made is not the right thing. To me this would just be another error by the Election Office.

    CoS Section Y is a Standard for Demogame IV. This legislation was drafted in its final form before Nominations were drawn up. Just because it was held up until the end of the rule making process, as a lot of things were, unnecessarily, doesn't mean it's not an effective Standard for Demogame 4 if ratified. The Standard governs our election process and should be adhered to. Especially now, as we are to hold re-elections. CoS Section Y.III.D.1 explains how elections for the Judiciary are to be carried out. This Standard should be followed from here on out.

    As I said before, this is not about me. If I had lost the election, I would have congratulated Ravensfire and walked away. Even though the Judiciary Election process was all wrong and begged correction, I would have walked away from this. But as there was a tie between the Chief Justice candidates (as set up by the Election Office), and a new Election poll needs to be run, we should NOT continue using the same incorrect manner. It is now time to clean this mess up and do it the right way. Set up a new Nomination thread for the Judicial Branch. Let it run for 2 days. When it closes, run an Election thread for the Judiciary. Then just follow the Standard covering the Election. No judgment call required.


    __________________
     
  8. Xen

    Xen Magister

    Joined:
    Feb 10, 2003
    Messages:
    16,001
    Location:
    Formosa
    in my opinion, this has the good effect of pointing out a snag in the old law system- a snag which must be ammended, in the following manner-

    no election can take place unless it has 3 candidates

    as for the current snag, I still think you just appoint me, and be done with it :p
     
  9. zorven

    zorven 12,000 Suns

    Joined:
    May 13, 2003
    Messages:
    1,964
    Xen,

    I agree that this situation needs to be addressed in our code. However your solution to require 3 candidates is not viable. A better alternative would to have the current Senate vote to decide the tie. In the case of a 1st term election, we would use the newly elected Senate.

    Edit: see my proposal
     
  10. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    Citizens,

    Lend me your ear!

    We find ourselves in a problem of our own making, caused by both our haste and our lack of it. We all wanted to start DG4 in '04, and set outselves the objective of begining in January.

    That became the deadline for passing our ruleset. We didn't make it. If we were to start the game as planned, elections had to be held according to a certain time schedule. When the nominations were posted, all we had was a list of the offices. Regardless of how finalized the Election laws were, they were not polled and ratified. Thus, they didn't count. We held elections without the basis for them. Unfortunately, the only position where a tie could cause an issue, had a tie.

    As many have stated, this situation CANNOT happen if the election laws are followed. We currently have 2 Associate Justices - Peri and Boots. We have two individuals tied for Chief Justice - Cyc and me. Normally, we will have three Justices, just a question of who the CJ is. In fact, the only possible way to have a similar problem would be to have the top four candidates have the same number of votes.

    I digress though. A simple answer to this problem is to follow the law and hold a run-off between Cyc and myself. Others have suggested sharing (one voice, one vote) - let's not try that, please? Cyc and I have strong opinions about various matters.

    He and I are discussing some options for this matter. Given the unusual circumstances, I request that we be allowed to come to a solution, and propose it at that point in time.

    Thanks,
    -- Ravensfire
     
  11. Peri

    Peri Vote early and vote often

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2002
    Messages:
    3,261
    I am glad that you will come to a compromise and avoid another election.
     
  12. Rik Meleet

    Rik Meleet Top predator Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2003
    Messages:
    11,977
    Location:
    Nijmegen Netherlands
    That was what I was hoping for Raven.
     
  13. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    Congratulations to both candidates, you both belong on the bench, and it is fitting that this result would point out the flaw in the CJ / AJ elections.

    By all means, please proceed (quickly) with deciding between yourselves how this should be handled, and placing that proposal before the people for comment.

    The right solution is not even available, given the forum polling options we can choose from. What we really need is a multiple choice poll which is "vote for at most 3" with all of the judiciary candidates included. A standard poll results in the spectre that two candidates could get all of the votes for the CJ position, and only one AJ is selected.
     
  14. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    DaveShack,

    It is available, kind of. It would have to be a cumulative voting deal though, and that introduces it's own problems. Basically, create three Judiciary polls, each listing all candidates. Total the results of all of them, and you've got your results! As I said, it does mean cumulative voting, which could result in some interesting elections.

    I think that process would be better than a single election.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  15. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Sorry, DaveShack. A multiple choice election poll is the worst thing we could possibly turn to in a situation like this. The chances of only two candidates getting all the votes in an election with 4 or 5 candidates in these forums is astronomical. It would never happen. 1 person = 1 vote.

    I have read the proposed plans for handling this situation, to include "sharing" of office responsibilities. I do not see how these can work. On the other hand Ravensfire's statement that we should follow the law and have a run-off is erroneous also. That "run-off" situation was set in all the candidates being in the same election poll. They were not, as the Judicial Elections were put up in an incorrect manner (not once, but twice). Unfortunately there was a tie, which complicated matters. As we now have newly ratified Election Standards in the CoS, they should be followed. Which means starting from scratch (Nominations). Anything else would be contrary to one of the supporting books of the Constitution.
     
  16. ybbor

    ybbor Will not change his avata

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2003
    Messages:
    5,773
    Location:
    Chicago Suburbs
    i propose one of you takes 1st term, and another takes 2nd. it is too late to repoll, and i'm sure oneof you probably feels the second half would work better for your schedules, another option would be to split the term.

    I feel so wierd right now, i was on vacation, and that computer wouldn't let me answer a poll for some reason(any poll, not just DMGIV) , when i got home, i rushed to cast my vote, to find thanks to me the vote was tied, 20 vs. 20, and now i feel like thanks to me, democracy has failed :lol: lol, he...uhhhhhhh...errrrr,ummm, oh boy do i feal wierd; you cam now comense blaming me (i did not look at the result before voting, i chose the canadate i thought best, this was not intentional)
     
  17. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,391
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Would it make sense to poll all the available options and have the citizens vote on which one they feel is most appropriate for this poll?
     
  18. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    What your asking is:

    Should we allow not only the Election Office to post a poll about an election that has illegal Options in it, but also should we allow the citizens the opportunity to vote for illegal election methods.

    I can see how the Election Office could produce a poll like this, but I refuse to let the citizens of Fanatica purposely vote for illegal methods.
     
  19. FortyJ

    FortyJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    Based on real life examples as well as what I have read concerning elections in our laws, it seems to me that there are only two legal options to resolve this matter:
    1. One candidate concedes the election.
    2. A run-off election is held to determine a winner.
    Sharing the office is unprecedented and as it turns out unhelpful as the CJ is essentially the tie-breaking vote in judicial matters (something that cannot be done if there are two of them).

    Allowing the President or any other officer and/or branch of government to appoint one candidate as the winner should be illegal, if it is not already. This practice is ripe with disaster.

    Postponing one candidate's term in office is most certainly against the rules as there is no provision for officer-elect positions in which positions are decided a term in advance. Furthermore, it assumes that one of the individuals even wishes to hold office next term, which is no simple assumption.

    Finally, any concern about citizens forgetting to vote and/or changing votes is moot. Run-off elections occur regularly and it remains the citizens' responsibility to cast their votes in that election as they see fit at that time (whether it is the same vote or not). Furthermore, the government has no obligation to ensure that every citizen that participated in the initial election does so in the run-off. All citizens are aware of the possibility of run-off elections and it is up to them to take part in them if they occur.

    If neither candidate wishes to concede the race to the other, then we must initiate a run-off election as soon as possible. The nation needs a Chief Justice, and we are on the clock.

    PS. This "quagmire" was (and still remains) an excellent opportunity for these candidates to display their skills as CJ by analyzing the rules that exist and post a "ruling" on what the proper procedure should be. I'm a little disappointed that neither candidate has done so (unless I've missed it while skimming over the 2 pages of today's posts - which, if I have, then I apologize).

    PSS. Ok. I just got ripped by Cyc who pointed out to me that he did reference a standard in the CoS only a few posts before mine, so I guess my eyes are still a bit blurred from the festivities last night. My sincerest apologies Cyc.
     
  20. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Double post! :blush:
     

Share This Page