 |
| |
|
|
Pedrunn
|
 |
of Natal, Brazil
Jul 2001
time: 02:23
|
|
In another poll we have decided not to have two polls to decide a government position. Now i ask:
- What if a tie happens???
Here what the current constitution says:
quote:
CTP2DG Constitution
(j) In case of a tie in the election poll, the Court should count the number of times each candidate was previously part of the government. The candidate with fewer prior terms in the government is chosen. If the tie persists the candidate who has been registered on Apolyton for the longest period of time will be chosen. If the tie still persists, the Court will decide which candidate is chosen. |
But before this decision is made by this how this article says should we have a run off poll between the two candidates of the tie (if they are the most voted of course).
YES - If you choose yes, a run-off poll will be started after the election of a gov position if a tie happens. and if a tie happens again in the run off poll it will be solved the way the constitution says anyway (the part i quoted).
NO - If you choose no, if the tie happens the people wont have to vote again in the run-off poll. And the disput will be solve the way it says in the constitution.
So, if a tie happens should we have a run-off poll?
Last edited by Pedrunn on 12-11-2002 at 15:13
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
Hi Pedrunn,
I think this poll is a bit to early, we even haven't decided on the constitution yet................
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
I voted no, but that's because I had a better, IMO idea. in case of a tie, let the new minister's choose from the two candidates.
I could swear that that idea made it into the consitution too...
I disagree that this poll is too early, it is part of the constitution, so it should be hammered out. And to tell you the truth, the only people still debating the constitution have been pedrunn, locutus and I with a few posters chiming in every once in a while.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
well, not quite what i thought it was, but here is part of one of locutus' posts with an update for the connie:
quote:
(j) In case of a tie in an election poll where there are more than two candidates, there shall be a run-off election between the two candidates who received the most votes. This run-off poll shall last three days.
(k) In case of a tie in a run-off poll for a position in the Executive branch of government, the other members of the incoming cabinet shall vote on who should get the position. In case of a tie there, the newly appointed Senior Justice shall have the decisive vote.
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
H Tower,
The reason why I couldn't participate during the last few days is quite easy: Haven't got Internet at home, only at work, and we had a long weekend off 
And yes I agree, thre could be more input, but again most suggestions I read (i.e locutus, Pedrunn others.....) are quite OK for me.
The only thing I would like to see are more polls about specific things: like length of term, each part of the constitution and so on.
But not only the poll, first a discussion in a thread, afterwards the poll.......... That's how I would have like it to be done  , but mahority decides.
I don't want to take the effort of the people away, just it looks like that the people don't want to debate, maybe just decide (poll) and afterwards complain
But if you think that Pedrunn wanted to have this poll as a decision for the constitution (as mentioned by you) Pedrunn would need to change the title text in there. How I understood, was that Pedrunn wanted to have 'another' poll.
Pedrunn I don't want to blame you, if I missunderstood you: my appoligies. If H Tower is right, could you please change the title a bit, so that 'we' understand it a bit better.
Another reason why I don't participate too much is, I don't want to 'spam' too much and discuss a tiny little subject, which could we decided latest by the court or another poll (not saying that some were good suggestions.
But enough of it................
|
|
| |
|
|
|
H Tower
|
|
Spamming doesn't happen if you have something to say, especially if you want to debate part of the consitution. It doesn't matter how often you post, just that you have something to say.
What's wrong with the title?
The problem with what we're doing right now debating the connie is that when someone who is working to draft it has a problem, they ask that it get changed. I imagine, although i'm not positive, that each article will be presented in an up or down vote to the people, and that we'll have to go back and add or change parts when the game finally gets going. IMO, as the connie is written up right now, it is acceptable enough for us to start the game and we can hammer out the problems after a term or two. This way we can people interested  Unfortunately, or more likely fortunately, not everyone has a strong opinion on the constitution, but we want to keep everyone interested at the same time too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Gilgamensch
|
|
France
Jun 2002
time: 06:23
|
|
H Tower,
That was kind of what I was hoping for.......
We kind of poll about every single article of the connie.. Also get more debats running on each single one (OK, maybe not each single one, but like length of 1 term, number of positions.....
And Pedrunn,
you have done a excellent job starting the connie. Somebody has to start or we'll never get somewhere.
It seems to be conflicting what I am saying, but somebody needs to start something that others can bring their brain-cell (maybe even cells) together.
For name, I would have added something like:
Constitution: During official poll we run into a tie.
Might make it easier for guys like me
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:23.
Apolyton Time is 00:23. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-11-2002 15:06
|
|