05-07-2002 08:54									#1
	Amendment: Election Standards Get a bigger avatar today!

Alright, this is one of my first three initial amendments I planned on authoring. This should be a quick discussion, since it's just laying out rules and stuff for elections (since we don't have any).

Here's my proposed amendment:

quote: This amendment is an attempt to rectify the potential loopholes of governmental elections, and to lay out basic rules. Each election takes place exactly one month after the previous election. A Pre-Election thread must be created at least a week before the elections are set to take place. All elections must last 5 days. All canidates must announce their canidacy before the elections begin, or else he will be excluded from the ballot. Once the 5 days has passed, then the new or reelected ministers will be admitted to their offices. The elections must be conducted by either the current President, or the current Vice-President. If they are unavailable at the time of the election, then someone may be selected by a majority vote among the Ministers to conduct the elections. The winner of the election is determined by a simple majority vote: whoever gets the most votes wins. In the case of a tie, there will be a run-off between the tied canidates (in the case of a 3+ person election), or a vote will be sent to the ministers to decide who wins. A person may run for only one office per election. One may only hold a particular office twice in a row. There are no limits beyond this regarding reelection for either that office, or any other. 'Joint candidates' of more than 1 person are allowed, but there may only be 2 people maximum running as a team. The limit for teammates for Vice-President is 3, while the office of President does not allow any form of team to run.

That's it. Not too painful for you anti-rule types, eh? Any other suggestions for additions are welcome.

	05-07-2002 08:58									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

How about in the case of a tie? I know it's probably not going to happen, but what would be the procedure?

NO RECOUNTS!!! AND PREGNANT CHADS DON'T COUNT!!!

	05-07-2002 09:00									#3
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by LordImpact How about in the case of a tie? I know it's probably not going to happen, but what would be the procedure? NO RECOUNTS!!! AND PREGNANT CHADS DON'T COUNT!!!

Good one!
I'll edit it and add that in.

	05-07-2002 09:13									#4
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Suggest 'A person may only be elected twice consecutively to the same office.' Unless you wish to say that you can never be President again if you are reelected in a few days.

	05-07-2002 09:13									#5
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

I would vote for this.

	05-07-2002 09:15									#6
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither Suggest 'A person may only be elected twice consecutively to the same office.' Unless you wish to say that you can never be President again if you are reelected in a few days.

It just says that you can only be elected twice to the same office. That doesn't mean I have to win consecutively... I could leave, come back in a year, run for President again and take up the office. IIRC, people voted for a term limit over no limit, and 2 terms had the highest number of votes. I can't go against the will of the people.

	05-07-2002 09:19									#7
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes. I agree about the limits. But I don't think it was clear they were saying twice ever. I think I brought up the same question before and some responses were to the effect that this only meant 2 terms before a break.

	05-07-2002 09:54									#8
	Increase the size of your Attachments

Check out my poll here on the subject. A pathetic amount (33 people) voted, so public opinion may have changed since then. I may make another poll about it once 2 weeks has expired.

	05-07-2002 10:01									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

That is an excellent example of bias due to an over whelming number of options for limits and only one option for no limits. Put the question fairly, limits or no limits, yes/no abstain. Follow up with a poll for the number of terms if limits are accepted.

What you did is let the yes voters decide the number of terms to limit people to, even though more people voted for no limits than any other option. Therefore, the no voters were disenfranchised from the decision of how many terms. Am I making sense?

BTW. civman2000 i would assume that this poll is about how many times someone can run for any position...though it should only count for consecutive terms. Panag felt the same, as did I. I was asking slightly different questions than I remember though.

	05-07-2002 10:05									#10
	Support Apolyton

And you yourself The poll only refers to the # of terms in a row someone is allowed to be elected... Very confusing. Many of the voters probably thought along these lines and that someone could lead for 2 terms, take a break and then come back and lead again.

	05-07-2002 10:23									#11
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I wasn't here when the game started up, so I didn't vote in the mentioned polls. However, if a new poll was taken, I would vote to only have a limit on consecutive terms as well.

	05-07-2002 10:47									#12
	Got spare money?

quote: Originally posted by notyoueither That is an excellent example of bias due to an over whelming number of options for limits and only one option for no limits. Put the question fairly, limits or no limits, yes/no abstain. Follow up with a poll for the number of terms if limits are accepted.

Do you know how the grouping system works in polls? Unlimited got 15 votes, limited got 18, and a 2-term limit was the highest voted for within group 2. Therefore, it was decided that there would be a 2 term limit.

In the actual question, I inquired "How many terms should each official be allowed to be up for election?" which is fairly definitive. In the question I never mentioned in a row... I was only referring to another poll which asked that question. I'm simply asking "how many times they're allowed up".

	05-07-2002 11:47									#13
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Yes. I am aware of how the grouping method works. What I maintain is that ganging 8 options into a group vs 1 in the other group is biased. It leads people to compromise among the 8 and avoid the extreme of the 1. Not everyone is going to, or should be expected to, analyse every poll at length before they vote.

I also maintain that it forces people who favour the single 'no' option to chose between supporting their real choice or effecting the outcome of the group of 8 options.

Unbalanced. Unfair. Even though you yourself set up the poll and you were not in favour of limits (I think) the poll was still weighted to come out the way it did.

It was also unfortunately worded. It actually says that you are limited to 2 terms period in any office. I and everyone else know that was not your intent, however that is what it says. The qualification of 'in any given office' is missing.

Fair and accurate polls require clear, balanced, easy to understand options.

	05-07-2002 11:51									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

To be honest, I was going for no limits, and wasn't really biased towards limits...
In any case, I'll just make an amendment discussion for the whole thing and get it straightened out once and for all. I definitely feel that amendment polls need to be 'yes/no' polls, but that poll was created a very long time ago before any standards were created.

	05-07-2002 11:57									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Your 'side' will do better in a well constructed poll. Yes, it was a long time ago (relatively).

	05-07-2002 14:23									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I thought that poll was for max # of consecutive terms in one position also - based on all the discussion beforehand that was certainly the case.

I love how all the Constitutional decisions here need to be repolled for some reason or another.

Ah, Constitutions, group polling methods...

I have SOO much ammunition if I ever felt the need.

Oh BTW I have no probs with your first idea, Trip. (Just to be at least lightly supportive)

	05-07-2002 14:47									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt I thought that poll was for max # of consecutive terms in one position also - based on all the discussion beforehand that was certainly the case. I love how all the Constitutional decisions here need to be repolled for some reason or another. Ah, Constitutions, group polling methods... I have SOO much ammunition if I ever felt the need. Oh BTW I have no probs with your first idea, Trip. (Just to be at least lightly supportive)

We should create a forum dedicated to polls. And a subforum dedicated to consitutional polls.

But I agree with NYE. If you have a question asking "Are you left wing?" and then the possible answers are "Yes, I am a communist. Yes I am a stainlist, Yes I am a maoist, Yes I am a liberal, Yes I am a democrat, Yes i am a socialist, Yes but im something else, No im right wing", yes will probably get the most votes.

The results are extremly skewed in favor of a certain option, and there should be a (yes, you knew this was coming) REPOLL.

A repoll would allow us to main our democratic standards as the opinion of the people would actually stand out without bias. Instead of the poll with the optinos I mentioned above, why not just have "Yes, No"?

	05-07-2002 17:35									#18
	Suffering from ads?

The only question I'd have here is, should the President and VP handle the election poll? Is that open to fraud? (Kinda like having your brother's cronies run the election in a key state, where the vote was basically tied ....)
Maybe the judiciary (assuming we set one up) could oversee the election.

	05-07-2002 20:23									#19
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Good idea, though i suggest that nye's suggestion is adopted. The purpose of term limits should be to prevent somebody from staying forever. This whole thread(largely) shows how a judicial branch is useful, since they could review the initial poll etc. By the way when are the next elections.
Aggie

	05-07-2002 20:58									#20
	Got spare money?

I think the consensus so far is that nye is correct. the initial poll was misleading and many of the voters thought they were voting for limits on CONSECUTIVE TERMS, not total limits.

I believe the majority of posts in that polling thread also indicated that voters also qualified their votes on term limits to mean CONSECUTIVE terms.

therefore, Trip, I think you should modify the amendment so that it reflects this. once we vote on the amendment, if it passes, it will be Constitutional and thus overrule the faulty results on the last poll on the subject. Otherwise, if you pass this amendment in, then it will only reinforce the original faulty poll results.

I should also point out at this time that the existing Constitution was rushed into existence, including the polling standards (which IMHO should have been a separate amendment). Considering that the Constitution was very vague and unclear on some things - such as whether the polling standards made the old or new poll invalid if conducted before (or was it after) 3 weeks was up. The President came speedily with a clarfication, but by that time, the majority of votes had ALREADY been cast. Meaning that many people likely had their own interpretation that was different from the President's and had voted for thier interpretation, not the correct (unknown at the time) one.

Therefore, I advocate the creation of the Judiciary to resolve such matters of law and Constitution and the appointment/election of judges who will seek out the Spirit of the Constitution rather than the exact words.

Until such a judiciary agrees on the invalidity of the term limiting poll, I think Trip should take into consideration the majority of posts given here arguing for the modification to the amendment. Thus, once modified and amended, the Constitution will take precedence.

btw, seeing how nye has no political affiliation and has a pretty good grasp of the rules, I nominate him for a judge (whenever we sort out the rules for our judiciary)

	05-07-2002 21:30									#21
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

I also considered this poll to be about # of terms in a row.

As this was pretty confusing, I suggest we take this kind of decisions step by step :
step #1 "should there be any limitation to holding positions ?" (said in good English )
step #2 "should there be a limitation on the absolute number of terms, or on consecutive terms ?". This poll would be held only once poll #1 is done, and only if "yes" won in poll #1
step #3 "how many terms ?". Same thing, only when poll #2 is done (poll #2 could also be a grouping poll)

I'm a supporter of the grouping method, and I don't feel it rigs the poll (or it's extremely marginal). However, Grouping system is good when we have 2 steps to make, not 3.

There was a tremendous confusion about the term limiting polls, so I think we should deem them invalid, and start on a good foundation as soon as possible, when we have still time. Currently, the question of limiting terms isn't an emergency. Better do it now than in a rush.

Any comments ?

Edit :

quote: Originally posted by Trip 18-06-2002 The poll only refers to the # of terms in a row someone is allowed to be elected.

I see I was not alone to be confused

	05-07-2002 21:59									#22
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

The current CODE OF LAWS (popularly referred to as the Constitution) states:

quote: Length of Office Terms: All office terms shall last one month. A member can run for a different office at the end of his term, but he cannot change offices during it. If a member is elected three times into the same office, that member must run for a different office in his fourth term, or not run at all.

Indicating 3 is the maximum number of CONSECUTIVE terms in office. There is currently no total limit on terms.

This amendment, currently worded, would change that to a total limit of 2.

Otherwise, I'm fine with it.

	05-07-2002 22:27									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

As I was not around during the first elections, I would like to know if nominations have to be seconded or not. If they do I would like to second History Guy's nomination for Historian. He has proven to be an active and capable member of this community and I have not seen much from our current historian.

	06-07-2002 01:28									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

So Trip, gonna modify that amendment or keep it the way it is?

I have to say I think you'll get more votes to ratify it if you modify it so there is no TOTAL limit to the terms rather than the 2 term TOTAL limit there is in the proposed amendment now.

	06-07-2002 01:35									#25
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Captain So Trip, gonna modify that amendment or keep it the way it is? I have to say I think you'll get more votes to ratify it if you modify it so there is no TOTAL limit to the terms rather than the 2 term TOTAL limit there is in the proposed amendment now.

Alright, I'll change it. It won't be just an amendment for elections, but oh well.

	06-07-2002 01:39									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

You are a man of the people Trip!

	06-07-2002 02:43									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Why term limits?? Our best civ players should be aloud to run as much as they want within the confines of the current code of laws. I don't see any need for this amendment.

	06-07-2002 03:02									#28
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Trevman Why term limits?? Our best civ players should be aloud to run as much as they want within the confines of the current code of laws. I don't see any need for this amendment.

The people already voted to have a limit (in a row), so that's what I'm going to put in the amendment. If you disagree, you can always start a poll on it.

	06-07-2002 05:42									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Oh, but don't forget that poll is invalide unless it's held sufficiently after the first on (four weeks, I think).

	06-07-2002 05:57									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt Oh, but don't forget that poll is invalide unless it's held sufficiently after the first on (four weeks, I think).

Two weeks, TWO WEEKS my friend.