 |
What is your feeling on the "Two Presidents" decision by our candidates?
This poll is closed. |
| Approve |
   |
16 |
26.67% |
| Disapprove |
   |
44 |
73.33% |
| Total: |
60 voters |
100% |
|
| |
|
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
Splitting up the presidency sounds much better, then Trips and Ninots decision to assume command. My only problem with this is that it still does not recognise the poll as valid. Are we saying that Al Gore and George W. Bush should have co-hosted as presidents, or better yet, each taken two years. Doing this because the voting was simply to unclear.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
The two presidents cannot be allowed, in fact nor can Timelines. It is simply not coherent with our constitution. If the poll reveals a winner, even if it is by one vote, then there is nothing on our constitution that states that this poll is invalid. The fact that people wrote that it was invalid, and the fact that some people believe that there was some cheating, does not change the undeniable fact that it was valid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mtgillespie
|
|
Manchester, England
Oct 2001
time: 05:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GoodFella
Not an easy decision, technically it isn't unconstitutional as far as I can see. Both are qualified, and it could work with both I think...I don't know, need to think it over. |
Not unconstitutional?  This election is an official poll, which is not an amendment. If there is a winner, even by 1 vote, that person is president.
The people voted for a constitution. We can't just throw it out of the window, because we don't like the way things work out. If there is no proof of vote rigging, and we don't accept this result, we might as well give up the game, because in that circumstance anyone could declare any poll invalid.
If you don't like the system, change it. Say we need 60% for an election. Say people have to vote with a post, rather than in a poll. Say people have to have been registered a certain amount of time before they can vote. Any idea can be decided upon, but it will be done within our constitution . No exceptions. I'm sorry if this vote has been rigged, and i'm sorry for whoever get's the presidency this term, as they face a fight for acceptance, but it must be 1 president, for 1 term, decided by this poll.
If this poll has a winner, and that person is not declared sole president for the whole term, i for one will leave this game. We have a constitution. Our decisions must abide by it, or we are no better than people who vote rig, or people who play ahead, and our entire democracy is invalid.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wervdon
|
|
I think this might be both an acceptable and constitutional solution.
We accept whoever wins the poll for president as president, but only until we ammend our constitution for election reform. At which point the "president" resigns his post resulting in new elections to be held asap. Turn chats can be handled by the president (in whatever manner he chooses that keeps with our constitution), after his resignation and prior to the new elections conclusions the VP can run the turn chats.
Why I think this is constitutional:
quote:
Impeachment:
All members of our great nation are recognized the right to bring foreword the issue of impeachment of any government official at any time.
A poll will be posted which will expire in no less than 5 days. There are to be three poll options, yea, nay, and abstain. Upon the expiration of the poll, if 2/3 of the people who voted deem impeachment necessary, then the official shall be immediately removed from office. The President shall establish an emergency member to take his/her place until a new election can be held, and a new person voted into office to finish the term. The same holds true for any possible resignations.
|
The end of the impeachment clause includes resignations. It just says a) if a person is impeached or resigned the president can name someone to take their place and b) thats only until a new election can be held for someone to finish the term out. In this case the president is naming the VP to take his place until the new election can be held to replace him. (which works since its also the VP's job to play for the president if he can't for some reason)
I also reccomend that a clause in our elections reform ammendment except anyone who serves less than half their term from the term limits (allowing both candidates to run again)
The ammendment process _should_ take less than a week (3 days I think is min for voting, but it might be 5 for ammendments, but we have to debate it too) The new election should take 5 days. So we could have this resolved within 10 days easily, and it only require the VP to play 1 turn chat.
----
Anyways, thats my best attempt at a fair solution that also keeps with our code of laws.
Speaking of code of laws has any ammendments passed yet? We really should put a copy of our code of laws topped on the forum (or on the presidents page) that stays edited current for any passed ammendments.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Robber Baron
|
 |
Commonwealth of Commonsense
Jun 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
I was getting kind of depressed last night, fretting over our little constitutional crisis.
But this morning, I'm seeing a different side to things.
Time to count our blessings, people:
1.) We had what probably would have been (even without shennanigans) a very close election, close not because the candidates or their parties disagreed sharply over game tactics, but because most of us share a general consensus about how to proceed, on the map, to grow our civilization (at least, at this stage in the game).
2.) We have some structural/constitutional issues to work out -- like bugs we're trying to patch (and we're all familiar with that process, no?  ) ... but
3.) We have leaders who care about the game, who are trying to keep it both playable and responsive to the community, who are working imaginatively and in good faith to work out a solution.
4.) We have a vibrant citizenry, talking this thing out, keeping things in line.
Congratulations, citizens. Democracy can be messy. But community spirit will see us through.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sheik
|
|
How is the decision making process going to work? As long as you guys have all the issues worked out I am fine with it. I thought a long time before voting for president because it was a hard choice. And although it was a choice for one president I have no problems with two.
I think I like Timelines idea also. I would however like to see the justices nominated with both people having a say.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Papa Chubby
|
|
Iceland
Jun 2002
time: 05:20
|
|
Mark has just said that there is not any overt sign of any cheatig. He has stated though that the fact that only about 95 (approximation) of the 120 (approximation) who voted have submitted a post in the join thread, not the best of things. Besides this could all blow over as Ninot is over by three votes right now.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
 |
of España
May 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
Splitting the month is a good solution. And you could add to it this
Ninot is Trip's aid while Trip acts as president, though he can only do duties not reserved for the President or VP in the Const. And then they switch roles.
Last edited by jdjdjd on 16-07-2002 at 20:54
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jdjdjd
|
|
of España
May 2002
time: 00:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Timeline
LOL @ jdjdjd
Edit: Darnit man, you edited your post  |
yes, I thought I read all the posts and then saw all this other stuff...and then I was like, you knw, oh my god, and then I said well, I'm changing it because it doesn't make sense, and you know, so I did it, and then oh my god, did you like the original best, well, you know, anyway...
I thought your compromise idea is a way out of the woods.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Aggie
|
 |
Of GOW's half of BOB
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?
Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie
Last edited by Aggie on 16-07-2002 at 21:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kramerman
|
 |
UT, Austin - The live music capital of the world
Jun 2002
time: 23:20
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Aggie
This is to trip and Ninot. In another thread i suggested that we count the votes from citizens only, this is legal and mark said it could be done.
Now the question. If we do this will you honor the results of a citizens only vote tally?
Personally I like the copresidency idea, however this might be another way out, that could result in a definite winner.
Aggie |
If the legal votes are sorted out from the illegal ones, then the winner of the Presidential elction, by plurality vote as stated in the Constitution, must honor that election poll and become the single President of Apolytonia.
If the "legalized" poll shows a single winner, then he must follow that. If he didn't, then that would defeat the purpose of our Constitution and our Democracy. I say this is the most legal solution. Since we don't yet have a supreme court, then the newly elected ministers and VP can sort out the votes with MarkG help and the true winner be identified. If it turns out to be a real tie, then the Pres should be chosen however the Constitution says it should be done. And remember (I believe but am not sure, but it is only logical), Trip is still the President until the new one takes office so legislation can still be passed. I mean just because we are in the voting process doesn't mean we don't have a leader.
Also, many good solutions have been proposed, such as by Timeline, but the "citizenry" cannot arbitrarily chose the solution to this problem on this thread. The solution should be voted on like normal legislation by the governing body (I dunno if that includes the citizenry, I haven't been active in the game until just a few days ago)
Kman
|
|
| |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
16-07-2002 12:02
And even if they can, its bound to slow down our turn chats. The other option is for them to just take turns managing the turn chats and whoever is in charge of the current turn chat is the sole president for that day.
|