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. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    I have been doing that for the last page FortyJ. I have been quoting or referring to Section Y of the CoS in several posts, as it is the most relevant here. This Section governs the Election process and in particular the processes for the Judiciary and the Senate/Governors. It seems the Election Office was able to fully grasp the concept for the Governors, but completely ignored the concept for the Judiciary.

    I can post a link to the Section if that will help. :)

    Link to CoS Section Y

    EDIT:Apology accepted FortyJ ;)
     
  2. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Cyc, your method of resolving this is illegal too. Elections and nominations must be held on specific days, as the CoL states here:
    Code:
    IV.  Elections shall be conducted according to the following scheduled:
      A.  Nominations shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run 
          until the election polls are posted.
      B.  Debates shall start 7 days before the end of the month and run until 
          the election polls close.
      C.  Election polls shall start 4 days before the end of the month and run 
          for 3 days.
    The Code of Laws is considered to be of more weight than the Code of Standards, therefore, this would make your proposed method of resolving it even worse than the problem, legally. I feel strongly that we must post a runoff poll, as ordained in X.V.A for all tied elections:
    Code:
    V.  The citizen gathering the most votes in an election is deemed the winner 
        of that election.
      A.  Should more than one citizen tie with the highest totals, a run-off 
          election lasting 2 days shall be immediately posted listing only the tied citizens.
    Cyc, the runoff election seems like the most valid way of doing this, from what I can tell from the recently passed legislation. Unless you can come up with how your method is legally justifiable, I will post a runoff poll sometime within the next 24 hours.
     
  3. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    This is very similar to the voting method suggested in some U.S. locations to deal with minority representation, for example in city councils. Instead of each candidate running for a separate seat, all of the candidates are running for all of the seats at large. Each voter is allowed to vote once for each "seat", and has the option of voting for the same person n times.

    I believe we need to either follow the current 3 books (if these sections have been ratified) or change the law first to accomodate alternative polling methods. We'll be so late into the term if we try to change the law that it does not make sense to do that for the 1st term.

    I will offer a specific recommendation, probably for use in later terms only:

    Hold nominations for CJ and AJ separately. The CJ candidates go into a separate CJ-only poll. Include the CJ candidates in two identical AJ polls along with the AJ candidates. The winner of the CJ poll becomes CJ, and the AJ offices are filled using totals across all the polls. Admittedly, this gives losing CJ candidates an advantage over AJ-only candidates, but at least it keeps us from getting a CJ who didn't really want that office.
     
  4. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    We can just disagree on this part for now, there is no time to fix it for term 1 anyway. I'd be interested in a more lengtly debate at another time... ;)

    I have to agree that the only sane alternative is to declare the entire judicial department election as invalid, and start afresh. A bandaid is the last thing in the world we need, especially in this critical department. An abbreviated schedule would be a must, maybe 24 hours for noms and 48 for the election polls.
     
  5. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Bootstoots, those generic passages you have quoted deal with election concepts as a whole. IF they Election Office had run the Elections that were legal, thos would hold some weight. But the elections weren't performed legally.

    Section Y specifically states the procedure to use in the Judicial Election process. No generic terms. It says Judiciary. One can not be confused by that. Section Yis much more appropriate legislation for an occurance such as this.

    Had the elections been handled properly, then your advise would be more applicable.
     
  6. FortyJ

    FortyJ Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2001
    Messages:
    2,186
    Location:
    South Florida
    :rotfl:

    So... according to our new ruleset, the elections we just held for the judiciary branch of our government were illegal. This is nothing short of a comedy of errors.

    Edit: I guess it's only fair to acknowledge that the rules were not ratified until the elections had already begun.
     
  7. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Do you see my point that if you were to hold these elections as you have proposed, that they would be illegal just the same as the original ones? The sections that I quoted were not generic; in fact, they deal very specifically with the times that the elections are to be held and what process should be used to break ties in the event that they should occur. The fact that the original elections were done improperly is irrelevant as the Code of Laws by nature overrides them and that the process for breaking ties involves a runoff between first place candidates as defined by CoS Y.III.1.iv. It is impossible to legally hold new Judicial elections because it violates the Code of Laws very clearly and unmistakeably. A runoff, despite the fact that the election preceding it is technically illegal, seems to be the best possible action under the law.

    EDIT: This post isn't entirely serious because the laws and standards behind this were not even ratified before the elections closed, see next post.
     
  8. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    And the elections were over before they were ratified, a point that I have been trying to make all along. I don't see how these rules should apply to the elections in the first place as they were ratified after the elections were over. That would be like going back to Term 3 of last DG and rerunning donsig's infamous PI because the threadbare CoL ratified after the fact had different PI procedures. These laws do not even apply to this election in the first place.

    BTW, this is contradictory to my previous post; in that one I was merely pointing out the flaws in Cyc's reasoning even if the laws were valid.
     
  9. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Boots, the laws were in the process of being written and or ratified to be used in the DGIV game. Just because the Election Office failed to keep current with the new legislatiuon is not my fault.

    It seems to me you want to avoid the issue of legality because of your self-interest in remaining an Associate Justice. At this point I would like to point out to everyone your motives for continuing this overly worked conversation.

    You think my proposal would be illegal? Come on Mr. Election Office. Run an election for the Judiciary right now and use the laws we have in place. It would look just like my proposal, wouldn't it?

    What? I can't hear you....
     
  10. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Through PMs, Ravensfire and I have worked up a compromise that may be suitable for this situation. As we were the two candidates for the CJ position, it seems appropriate that we come up with an appropriat solution. Here's the PM:

    Re: CJ Election
    Good - we agree!

    I'm going through the ruleset threads - would you mind posting this in the CJ election thread? One thread, all candidates, give 'em 24 hours to drop nomination then run the election poll.

    We agree, let's see if everyone else does.

    -- Ravensfire



    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Cyc wrote on Jan 01, 2004 09:59 PM:
    Of the two, I would say the latter:
    "post one poll with all candidates in the CJ and AJ elections and run a 2 or 3 day election."

    Although we may want to allow any of the candidates the opportunity to drop out before the election poll goes up.

    Cyc




    quote:
    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    ravensfire wrote on Jan 01, 2004 07:45 PM:
    I can see two options then for a re-vote:

    Ignoring how we got to this point, the letter of the law would say a runoff poll.

    Recognizing how we got to this point, toss out the entire Judicial elections, post one poll with all candidates in the CJ and AJ elections and run a 2 or 3 day election.

    Preference?
    -- Ravensfire

    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Now we still have have to disallow the Nomination process, but by allowing all Candidates in the Judicial elections thus far to accept/decline participation in the New Election Poll for the Judiciary, this would pretty much be covered. This process also expidites the solution as some people want to rush through this as quickly as possible.
     
  11. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    That is irrelevant, just because the election office didn't follow unratified rules doesn't mean that those rules apply to the elections.

    Avoiding the issue of legality?! That is ridiculous; I based my entire argument on whether your proposal was legal and pointing out that there are is a provision for runoffs in the CoL. I also displayed the counterpoint that none of these rules even apply to the election in question because they were not ratified before the election was over. As to your other point, of course I have self-interest in remaining an Associate Justice. However, the main reason that I would continue arguing this is to perform my job as Associate Justice and as a concerned citizen; I see something that appears illegal and I am challenging it.

    I would run a runoff election for the CJ position. Runoffs are specifically covered in the CoL, and as such I would think that a runoff for this election would be legal.

    I would also like to see you refute with evidence either of my points: That your proposed polling process is illegal, and that the laws that were ratified after the elections were over should not apply.

    EDIT: The proposal that you and ravensfire have agreed to may be a good idea but is still illegal for the same reasons that I posted above.
     
  12. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    I have received the voting results from Thunderfall and have determined that there has been no fraudulent activity.

    Now in regards to settling this matter, I suggest that we immediately hold a run-off election for the entire Judiciary. The candidates should be:

    Ravensfire
    Cyc
    Peri
    Bootstoots

    The only thing I do not like about this option is that it may strip Peri of an electoral victory that was won fair and square. A secondary option would be to hold an election between Ravensfire, Cyc and Boots, but something about that doesn't sit well with me either. Please let me know how we may tweak this option.

    Lastly and most importantly, I would like to offer my most sincere apologies for letting this matter unfold as it has. Truth be told, the holidays were a whirlwind of family obligations, where I found myself with more days off and ironically less time for the forums. In my absence, both CJ candidates here have been pretty much holding a personal conversation in the Citizens Forum about our laws for the last two weeks, and for that I am grateful.

    The important thing here is to not question each other's motives during this crucial time, as no one is at fault here but myself. I wanted so much to keep our deadline that I made some decisions that put the entire Judicial election in doubt. Please let me know if my solution will help to fix my mistakes.

    Respectfully,

    Donovan Zoi
    Wayward Mod :(
     
  13. DaveShack

    DaveShack Inventor Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2003
    Messages:
    13,108
    Location:
    Arizona, USA (it's a dry heat)
    As stated in my previous reply to Cyc, I approve of running a single poll with all candidates from the previous CJ and AJ polls. The person receiving the most votes will be CJ, the next two will be AJ's.

    • If more than one person has the same number of votes for the 1st place position after the new election, there will still have to be a runoff poll. The winner of the runoff poll would be the CJ and the loser(s) of the runoff poll would be AJ(s).
    • If the CJ position is not a tie, and three or more tie for the AJ position, then a runoff poll will be required to determine the AJ's, unless enough candidates withdraw.

    It would be helpful if one or preferably both mods confirm the procedure as defined by Cyc and ravensfire, possibly as an emergency one-time special rule. [edit] I see that DZ beat me to the "submit" button. [/edit]
     
  14. Bootstoots

    Bootstoots Warlord Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2003
    Messages:
    9,388
    Location:
    Mid-Illinois
    Your proposal does not fit fully within the letter of the law, but I think that it is a good proposal and does serve as a good compromise between Cyc and me. I cannot fully support it as that would not be in line with my above posts, but I will accept it if that is the final decision.
     
  15. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

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

    Although not a mod (Woohoo! DZ - glad it's you, not me!), I believe your interpretation of the two situations is correct.

    -- Ravensfire
     
  16. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    well, we've got it narrowed done to 4 candidates or what? 7?

    Either way works for me as long as we give candidates a chance to decline.
     
  17. ravensfire

    ravensfire Member of the Opposition

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2002
    Messages:
    5,281
    Location:
    Gateway to the West
    As the elections are, in fact, supervised by the Moderators, I can handle DZ's proposal.

    It is an unfortunate fact that we have a plethora of highly qualified candidates for the bench. Hmm, maybe we need 4 Associate Justices ...

    -- Ravensfire
     
  18. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    @Cyc - After reading the compromise between Ravensfire and yourself(I was typing at the time ;) ), I agree that it would be best to have one election for all candidates from both elections, while giving 24 hours for some to back off.

    @Boots - If all here are agreed on this, please post a pre-election thread in the Main Forum with a list of all 7 candidates. It may help to PM those not present during this discussion to give them the opportunity to sit out of the new election if they wish. After 24 hours has passed from the opening of that thread, you may post an Judicial Election thread that includes all accepted candidates.

    Sound good, everyone?
     
  19. Cyc

    Cyc Looking for the door...

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2002
    Messages:
    14,736
    Location:
    Behind you
    Suits me. This is the way it should be. Thanks DZ and eyrei, and everyone else who helped contribute to this resolution.

    And thanks to all of you who voted for me!!!!

    I need your vote again!!!!
     
  20. Donovan Zoi

    Donovan Zoi The Return

    Joined:
    Oct 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,960
    Location:
    Chicago
    Mine is best used for expediency, but since I have been pretty much removed from this process for its entirety, I will let you guys be the judge.

    4 candidates or 7?

    The two CJ candidates and the top two AJ candidates in a runoff is fine with me, and technically can be allowed since our CoS article concerning elections will not be ratified until tomorrow.
     

Share This Page