The Free Spirits

[Strider]

Even so, I don't think we can put the genie back in the bottle.

You should know me better than this, I've already managed to loosen the foundations... now it's just a matter of taking the stones down.

I'm going to "knock" the first stone down, hopefully, soon. I plan on taking a look at the election process inside of the constitution tommorow, and code in the debates I talked about earlier. This should atleast, allow new candidates a better chance to get noticed, and decrease the power of political parties.

 

[Strider]

Okay, instead of just writing the amendment up.. I'll get some discussion going on the topics that are for crafting the amendment:

1) The council that makes the debate questions, how should the members be chosen? Appointed by president (or any other official)? Volunteer's who are then accepted by a poll? Possibly even elected?

2) Where should the debates take place? Should they have their own thread that inside of the Citizens Forum (or one of the other forums)?
--------------

Well... damn. I knew I should have posted this before supper, instead of after. I had this huge list of topics that needed to be discussed, decided to wait untill after supper to post them... and now I've forgotten them all.

 

[BCLG100]

Okay, instead of just writing the amendment up.. I'll get some discussion going on the topics that are for crafting the amendment:

1) The council that makes the debate questions, how should the members be chosen? Appointed by president (or any other official)? Volunteer's who are then accepted by a poll? Possibly even elected?

2) Where should the debates take place? Should they have their own thread that inside of the Citizens Forum (or one of the other forums)?
--------------

Well... damn. I knew I should have posted this before supper, instead of after. I had this huge list of topics that needed to be discussed, decided to wait untill after supper to post them... and now I've forgotten them all.

Do you mean only people who are on this debate team can ask the questions or is this in addition to others asking questions?

 

[DaveShack]

Well, given the idea of free speech (inside the forum rules) I think it can only be "in addition to any questions the citizens might want to ask".

Volunteers of course, unless you can show a reason to have a process behind it.

The debates should take place in the nomination and/or election threads and must take place sometime between beginning of nominations and end of elections. We can't afford to elongate the process even longer, it already results in low participation in the game itself during the election cycle.

 

[Strider]

Do you mean only people who are on this debate team can ask the questions or is this in addition to others asking questions?

Anyone can ask a question of a candidate at any time, that should never be limited.

Volunteers of course, unless you can show a reason to have a process behind it.

No real reason behind it, just wondering if someone did have a reason to have a process behind it.

The debates should take place in the nomination and/or election threads and must take place sometime between beginning of nominations and end of elections. We can't afford to elongate the process even longer, it already results in low participation in the game itself during the election cycle.

We can have the "debate process" run the entire length of the election process. From the moment nominations open, to the time the polls close.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

here goes. t

he idiot's partee is so named because it is not a rigid thingy that demands dogmatic obedience to a slate of candidates. more like a keg party. Tis more of a gathering place for like minded fools. Stooges support each other cause we think alike (and for the most part have a history here at CFC). There is no requirement to vote for anyone; I've voted for someone who sent me on vacation.

you're being elitist in forming a debate team. let anyone ask what they will. their intelligence or bufoonery (hi, that would be me), will be revealed by their questions. go with the volunteers. we have too many polls already.

the debate process sounds wonderful. As long as it is reasoned debated, there is no reason why a darkhorse candidate can't win. if parties are against a candidate and the individual members can't state why they voted against, you've got your smoking gun (which is against the constitution IIRC)

 

[Strider]

argh, what the hell is up with the god damn indents. Makes it impossible to copy and paste anything from the constitution, and have it turn out correctly. That, and the indents just screws things up on older browsers.

Anyway, here's adding the "debates" into the constitution (well.. code of laws actually).

Section 5 Elections

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

Section 5 Elections

A) Elections
I. Elections of the Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges shall be of all nominated candidates who have accepted their nominations.

IA. Ballots shall have the names of all the candidates for a given office plus Abstain.

II. Nominations for Triumvirate, Cabinet, Governors, and Judges positions may be self nominations or a citizen may be nominated by another citizens.

III. Elections may only be held for offices that exist at the time of election.

IV. Debates shall start with nominations and close with the election polls. Any demogame citizen may submit a debate question, inside of the nominations thread during the nomination period and inside of the election poll during the election period. Candidates are not required to answer the questions.

---------

Just a quick question, but shouldn't "No citizen may run for two poistions" (well.... gotta be more professional than that, but you get the idea) be inside of this section also? I took a quick look around, and didn't see anything about being unable to run for two poistions (just says you can't hold two poistions).

Figured we might as well knock out that also, gives us one amendment poll instead of two.

 

[Strider]

he idiot's partee is so named because it is not a rigid thingy that demands dogmatic obedience to a slate of candidates. more like a keg party. Tis more of a gathering place for like minded fools. Stooges support each other cause we think alike (and for the most part have a history here at CFC). There is no requirement to vote for anyone; I've voted for someone who sent me on vacation.

you're being elitist in forming a debate team. let anyone ask what they will. their intelligence or bufoonery (hi, that would be me), will be revealed by their questions. go with the volunteers. we have too many polls already.

the debate process sounds wonderful. As long as it is reasoned debated, there is no reason why a darkhorse candidate can't win. if parties are against a candidate and the individual members can't state why they voted against, you've got your smoking gun (which is against the constitution IIRC)

I will repeat again, like minded people can get together and form a citizens group. The only reason to have political parties is to get you elected, you wouldn't need a political party to get elected, if it wasn't for political parties.

That basically sums it up.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

just to fine tune this, but why not let someone have more than one position?

if the populace thinks he or she can handle it, why not let someone serve in more than one place? if someone goes overboard we could alway vote them out.

 

[Strider]

just to fine tune this, but why not let someone have more than one position?

if the populace thinks he or she can handle it, why not let someone serve in more than one place? if someone goes overboard we could alway vote them out.

Having the same person hold two government poistions, knocks someone else out of the government. Making the government more centralised, but less democratic. This also kills the chance of newer players succesfully winning an election.

 

[ravensfire]

Strider, why do we need a law for this? I just can't see a reason for it. Are you concerned that someone will try to ban debates or something?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

Strider, why do we need a law for this? I just can't see a reason for it. Are you concerned that someone will try to ban debates or something?

-- Ravensfire

Think like you haven't been here for a year or longer. How is someone new to the game suppose to know there is even a concept known as debates, much less what the hell they are? Yeah, I know what debates are, because I've been here for a few years. If we've all been here for years, and were a closed group.. there would be no point to doing it.

We put it there to make it official, and to cut down confusion.

Once/If the amendment passes, I'll make a thread that is just a database of debate questions for each office. People can submit them any time, and when nominations start up.. I'll post them.

 

[Admiral Kutzov]

Having the same person hold two government poistions, knocks someone else out of the government. Making the government more centralised, but less democratic. This also kills the chance of newer players succesfully winning an election.

I agree with the one knocks out another theory, but because the peeps elect one person to more than one position, doesn't make it less democractic

After further consideration, i'll agree with the one person for one spot theory to encourage more participation.

If I've understood u, you're trying to broaden the base. all for that

 

[ravensfire]

You're right, Strider, they wouldn't figure it out when they see the debates happening.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Strider]

You're right, Strider, they wouldn't figure it out when they see the debates happening.

-- Ravensfire

What debates? We don't have debates yet.

 

[Swissempire]

we just din't label them as such, but they were there!

 

[Whomp]

V. Debates shall start with nominations and close with the election polls. Any demogame citizen may submit a debate question, inside of the nominations thread during the nomination period and inside of the election poll during the election period. Candidates are not required to answer the questions.

I thought this was standard practice since I responded to any questions asked in the SoW thread. Does this needed to be added or is it enough that it already happens?

 

[ravensfire]

What debates? We don't have debates yet.

And is there a legal reason for this? No.

The problem is not the law, it's people not posing questions. This includes the large number of long-term players that know quite well about debates, etc.

The problem is not the law. It's apathy. You've got the right idea with a citizen's group - you don't need anything more than that.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Nomad Bryce]

Wow, this conversation is... interesting. It has taken me varied parts of the afternoon to go from the first post to the last, and this certaintly is an interesting thread. In my oppinion, people have the right to vote for who they want to vote for. As long as they only have the right to their own vote, which is their property, nothing is wrong with the democracy. Just because people join parties does not mean that parties strip them of their right to vote. Our current President is an independent, as is our Minister of Science. I personally voted for both of those individuals, even though they did NOT belong to one of my various POLITICAL AFFILIATIONS. People don't join parties to get elected, they join parties because thats their way of saying "This is what I believe in." This right to assembly is in in of itself one of the most important aspects of any democracy. One vote doesn't make a difference. 50% of the vote makes a difference. Its not that one vote is useless, but that unified votes are what CHOOSE the BEST course in a democracy. And parties are simply a method of unifying ideologies. I personally view voting party for party sake as a very bad thing. And I also believe that in a partyless system, it is more difficult for citizens to join together and enact the will of the people.

But all of this is just one person's view of democracy. What is democracy but a word created and defined by man? Subject to change as different people interpret it since all language and communication varies from one person to another. And all of this coming from a member of the disenfranchised American Libertarian Party. Yes, I feel as though people vote straight dem or rep in elections, and dont even consider my candidates, but without the ability TO ASSEMBLE, I would not have fellow libertarians with which to expand my ideas and work with me to support our ideals. Which is what we vote on. Political Parties to some are defined methods of voting, but I feel that for most demogame players, it is a method of supporting one another with common beliefs because, well, thats who you want to support. You want to support your beliefs, which SOMETIMES manifest in fellow party members. Not always, but more likely then not. Anyway, just one persons rant on the subject, both sides of the fence are ok with me, I would just feel that I naturally have a group of people I agree with and would prefer to work with them and compromise with others than just be thrown into the ring for "Shout the loudest for your cause and hope your heard among 30 voices instead of 4 or 5 distinct voices which can be interpreted"

 

[Strider]

And is there a legal reason for this? No.

The problem is not the law, it's people not posing questions. This includes the large number of long-term players that know quite well about debates, etc.

The problem is not the law. It's apathy. You've got the right idea with a citizen's group - you don't need anything more than that.

-- Ravensfire

The problem with people not asking questions, is because they don't know they can ask questions. Thus... the law.