1) judical elections should be separated from executive elections. like executive elections on the end of the month, judical in the middle (15th).
this wont leave us without judical controll during election phase. as we already noticed, things get confused as positions change. with overlapping elections, we would be able to have controll thruout the term
An interesting idea. Perhaps take this one step further. There are 3 general bodies being elected (Cabinet, Governors, Judiciary). The election process takes about a week (24th to the end of the month). How about cyclical elections for the 3 bodies? For example, governors at the beginning of the month, judiciary in the middle and executive at the end of the month?
2) constitutional approval by all three positions of power in the game (judical, executive and legislative powers). this will make it even harder to change the constitution.
laws need judical and legislative approval, standards only legislative approval
Judicial review is required for every amendment, law and standard. Note that this is not a personal approval thing, it is strictly to determine if the proposal or change is legal within the existing amendments, laws, standards. It is already going to be extrememly difficult to change the constitution. 2/3 of all citizens plus 2/3 of all governors is not a goal easily met. Laws are the province of the legislative branch and standards are the province of the executive branch. This gives the executive branch the authority needed to fulfill their goal of the day to day running of the country but allows the citizenry to overrule standards with the more powerful laws.
1) please state now which position belongs to which state-power
I'm not sure what you're asking here. The individual powers of the positions are not changed. That is, the Domestic Leader has the same powers and responsibilities as before, as do the other officials.
2) how would the flow of decisions be for changes?
- Discussion
- Proposed Poll
- Judicial Review
- If it passes Judicial Review the poll can be posted to accept the change
- If it fails Judicial Review it goes back to discussion
what about reduction of offices? as seen in the appropriate threads, we could easily combine some of our positions in cabinet, as they always have to work together (joining departments), wich is also done in real life to reduce "clutter" and waste.
One of the main goals is to increase participation. Eliminating offices would work against this. Also, I think the 6 offices are important to keep the flavor of the Civ III game.
what about the proposal with having a kind of "status" attached to each article?
as i recap, this was:
a status of "unapproved" will be attached to every new or changed article in laws and constitution, which will then lead to this article been changed like the next lower book. for example, as long as an constitutional article will be unapproved, it will be changable like an article in the book of laws. an article in the book of laws will be changable like a standard.
after one month minimum, a citizen poll will be held to approve the article. the poll will have 4 options: "approve", "disapprove", "delete", "abstain". if disapproved, the article will stay unapprooved for one more month. if delete is chosen, the article is thrown out and can be revamped only after a minimum of one month.
if the article is approved, the status of the article is changed and it can from then on only be changed by the normal ways to change articles of the appropriate book.
this will eliminate the problem of bad articles which can only hardly be changed after ratification.
This is an interesting idea. To save bookkeeping headache I would simplify it. New articles and laws get a stamp of "Tentative until mm/dd/yy" and at that point become firm. Until that point the quorum and approval requirement for changing/deleting them is 1/2 instead of 2/3. Sound doable?
1) we dont have a limit on the number of governor-positions you can hold. you can only be one leader at a time, but can theoretically be as many governors as you like. only limit is that you are only allowed to run for 2 positions. i would prefer deleting the "run for 2 positions max" rule and therefore make a rule you are only allowed to accept 2 positions if elected, and only one of those is allowed to be a leader-position.
I caught that too and fixed it in the Laws. Goverors are officially leaders and any one person can only hold 1 leader position (which was the original intent).
2) we should extend the nomination range for president from cabinet-members to any elected official
This was also changed in the election laws already. Leaders, deputies, judiciary, governors and the current Pres & VP are eligible.
Keep 'em coming, dis! This is great stuff.
Everybody, please comment on the election cycle idea and the "tentative" amendment/law idea as these need to be in the Constitution if we wish to adopt them.
