 |
Who should be our next President?
This poll is closed. |
| Trip (UFC) |
   |
73 |
48.99% |
| Ninot (DIA) |
   |
76 |
51.01% |
| Total: |
149 voters |
100% |
|
|  |
 |
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
That would probably be the most fair to do, removing all those that are not members of the democracy game. Then we would have to follow up on this and put it into the constitution, prefferably into the Amendment that Trip has proposed. Furthermore it should be clarified what constitutes an majority vote, whether it is as little as 1 vote, or maybe a minimum of 5.
|
|
|  |
 |
|
wervdon
|
|
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)
But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue...
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fits the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,
quote: Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)
But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue... |
I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!
Last edited by Aro on 16-07-2002 at 20:00
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fit the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,
quote: Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)
But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue... |
I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Aro
|
 |
Ipanema
Jul 2002 time: 02:20
|
|
50% + 1 (vote) is majority in almost every democratic constitution over the world, when the subject are adminastrative jobs or regular senate matters. But, if the matter is the constitution itself, we will need 2/3 of votes ( I'm not shure if this is in our constitution ). I mean, amendments and changes. But, while I'm writing this Ninot is leading by 4 votes, and this fits the requirements. He is winning, by now.
But... one of the foundations of Democracy is the secret of vote. It's a private action, without pressures of any kind. Can we expose all votes without lost the spirit of the game? I don't care if everybody will know how I voted, but are many others who cares.
And, more important,
quote: Originally posted by wervdon
I personally wouldn't support actually removing anyone's vote unless it can be backed up with our constitution somehow (I dont think it can, but im not actually sure what if any ammendments passed so far)
But if we can show that it doesnt matter wether or not we remove votes, then everything else becomes more or less a non-issue... |
I agree. And we really need to put out our Supreme Court!!
|
|
|  |
 |
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002 time: 05:20
|
|
Right now it is looking as if our little crisis is blowing over. Though this does show us that our system of election is far from perfect.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
 |
|
GodKing
|
 |
Detroit
Feb 2002 time: 00:20
|
|
A suggestion.
If, and only if, it is a tie when all is said and done, trip is still president UNTIL he can nominate and have one justice / arbitrator approved. (I say arbitrator at this sage because we still wont have an official judge position in the near future). This person would, based on the constitution as it currently stands, review the situation. They would contact Mark G., as appropriate, and have access to whatever Mark is able (or willing) to provide. They would then decide a course of action, writing up their reasoning behind it (while still protecting confidentiality of the voters). Their decision would be final - no appeals. no recounts. no nothing. Harsh, yes. And the person so chosen could conceviably take considerable flack. So be it.
The other fair and reasonable suggestion I have so far heard is to let them share the position. Judging from the comments and the poll, about 70% of the people do not like this idea. Although most people think both candidates are good, they still would prefer only one president.
This is a clear situation showing why we should have a judiciary. I myself would like to be a part of it. But please note that by posting this suggestion, I hereby remove myself from consideration for this arbitor position. (Its not that I wouldn't mind doing it, it is just that I can see some people claiming a conflict of interest in both proposing this solution and then being the one to impliment it, expecially as I have previously made my interest known as being one of the judges.)
|
|
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:20. Apolyton Time is 00:20. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|