 |
who should be our president??
This poll is closed. |
| cavebear |
   |
15 |
62.50% |
| Shadowlord |
   |
9 |
37.50% |
| Total: |
24 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
Shadowlord
|
|
*shakes his head*
I only hope to strengthen our government. My reforms are not intended to weaken the democracy, but to strengthen it.
They do so by:
First, Reform #1 there is intended to protect our democracy against people like Hitler - It is intended to ensure that a wave of popular support for a charismatic speaker with no strategic or tactical skills will NOT catapault that person into the Presidency without first ensuring that the candidate has proven his ability by serving in at least one other cabinet position, thus giving the People the opportunity to see how skilled he actually is.
Also, the term limits exception which Civman has highlighted is a measure intended to ensure that, in times of war, when the country needs a steady hand, needs to be led by people who knows the country's strengths and weaknesses, and those of the enemy, that the elected President, Military Advisor, and Foreign Advisor, if so approved by the People in voting, may continue their terms while the war lasts, in order to preserve continuity of command, and prevent the Enemy from overrunning us while we fumble our troops around during the transfer of power that would occur if the President, Military Advisor, and/or Foreign Advisor were forced to step down due to the term limits, contrary to the wishes of the people.
As for why I'm running for President without having been in any cabinet positions, I find these reforms to be of sufficient import that I felt I had an obligation, for the good of the People, to bring these reforms to our Civilization, and the only effective way to do this is to become President. I also felt these reforms were of sufficient import that they must be implemented as soon as possible, so that we would have, if the People approve, continuity of command during the coming war.
But, if the People wish, and so it appears from the polls, I will hold the post of City Planner for the next term, and these reforms, unless adopted by my esteemed opponent, will remain un-implemented, until I am elected and the Council approves them.
I would urge my opponent to read my planned reforms, and at the very least, to adopt my exemption of term limits for the Historian. The post of Historian carries no possible corrupting influence, and we have an excellent Historian now. I see no reason to force him out of a job, when he is doing such a good one now. If someone else wishes to be Historian, they may still run for the position, of course.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Shadowlord
|
|
If they started a war which was harming the civilization just to be exempt from the term limits, there's a good chance the people would boot them out anyways - they still get to vote to decide who the pres + advisors are, so even if they're exempt from the term limits, the people can still kick them out. And we can trust the people to do so. Suggested Law 1 wasn't suggested because I don't think we can trust the people, I *do* think we can trust the people, but we cannot always trust the candidates to properly represent themselves. And, a person who wants to destroy our civilization from the inside, or who wants absolute power, would probably (we hope) not be content to have a whole term as an advisor, rather wishing to become President and get it done.
Of course, we could always hold emergency elections if the President turns out to be a dictator, and reload from the last save. But that would waste a good deal of our time.
But you have a good point. I'm removing that suggested law, and if elected now or any time in the future, I won't attempt to institute that law (the one barring people from running for president if they haven't held elected office).
P.S. It was also suggested because if someone became President without having been an advisor, they wouldn't know how the government worked (i.e. submitting reports and such), but that's not a major concern, as the previous president, or any advisors who were re-elected, could fill them in.
Last edited by Shadowlord on 29-04-2002 at 02:16
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shadowlord
|
|
Actually, in the 2000 elections in the USA, Joe Lieberman ran for both Vice President and for re-election in Congress (in Connecticut).
And the idea was that, if he was elected to both, he'd resign from congress, and a special election would be held to replace him, or something.
Just thought I'd point that out.
But I agree with you that this could get out of hand. Perhaps the new President should enact a law that each person can only run for a maximum of two offices per term.
Also, the way this election was run, the President poll went up, but the City Planner one didn't, and the results of the President poll decide the results of the City Planner one. However, in the future, we are likely to see 3-way races, and we won't be able to do that.
What I suggest is that we have all the election posts up at once, and after the voting is over, people who have been elected to more than one office must resign from all but one. The runner-ups would take the offices the winner resigned from. But since that could lead to the runner-up now having more than one office, he'd have to resign one as well... It could take a few days after the elections end to sort out who is in what position, if we have a lot of people running for multiple offices. If it does get really out of hand, we can always forbid running for more than one office, but right now, we don't have enough people to make that a serious concern yet. Until we start seeing three-way electoral races and almost no uncontested positions, I don't think we'll have any problems.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Shadowlord
|
|
I'm not going to argue with you - We've presented both sides of the coin, and now, we should put this up to a vote, and let the People decide how many offices someone should be able to run for at once, rather than having the Historian and City Planner-elect (Unless 7 people come out of nowhere and vote for me for President) arguing over this issue. I doubt I'd be able to change your views on this subject, besides which, I don't want to.
Personally, I do think that limiting people to running for one office per term would be a good thing, but (1) I was playing devil's advocate and taking the conservative side this time, and (2) I ran for two offices last term, in order to compete with my opponent, who was also running for two offices.
However, at the time I announced my candidacy for two offices, I hadn't considered the possibility of limiting candidates to running for one office at a time, and it wasn't until you brought the subject up that I realized how much simpler things would be if that were the case.
Now, here's the conflict. I believe that elections would be much simpler if candidates were limited to running for only one office, but that doing that could cause problems - For instance, in the last election, if we'd been restricted to running for one office at a time, and if Cavebear had still challenged me for the Presidency, we'd be lacking a City Planner for the next term. If not, I would have won the Presidency unopposed, and Cavebear would have become CP unopposed. Instead, this time, those two races were effectively combined into one, presenting both candidates with opposition and ensuring that we would not have an empty cabinet position after the elections.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cavebear
|
 |
of the Pleistocene
Oct 1999
time: 00:19
|
|
I have to admit that I think running for 2 offices was, shall we say, an "imperfectly happy outcome". 
So perhaps I should explain. I announced for re-election as City-Planner. Then, President Shade decided to retire. Waiting a bit and then seeing only Shadowlord running (and by that I mean "only", not "merely"), I decided to seek the job. I was happy to have Shade for another term, but with his withdrawal changed things.
I thought, without saying it specifically, that my announcement to seek the Presidency superceded my intent to seek the City-Planner position.
Then, President Shade suggested to Shadowlord that he seek the City-Planner position to gain experience (and Shadowlord agreed). So then, I thought both positions were uncontested. Vice President Shaka Naldur had a Soloman-like revelation and set up the election to allow the citizens to consider both Shadowlord and I for both positions since they were both otherwise uncontested. 
A very elegant and fully-empowering opportunity for the voters, in my opinion.
Hail Shaka!
It was an odd situation, and not too likely to arise again, so Shaka's decision seems a good solution.
I do agree, however, that such a situation should be allowed to arise again. Any of us should be able to run for any position, but not 2 at once. I know that wasn't my intention, and I am sure it wasn't Shadowlord's either.
So I don't expect the situation to re-occur, but I do suggest that no one should run for 2 offices at the same time in the future. We don't need to make hard rules about it, but we should keep the general restriction in mind. Let circumstances dictate how we will react in the future.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-04-2002 05:00
looks like the tie is broken here(or how long can there still be voted??)
|