24-06-2003 20:17									#1
	Consul Elections Discussion thread Get a bigger avatar today!

We've all seen the two recent polls - BigFree's and Togas'. In each poll there are many voices outlining their discontent, that there are better ideas etc. Now let's actually sit down and work out EXACTLY what different ideas there are, perfect these and put them to poll so we can get this whole thing out of the way.

Now, let's review: BigFree posted a poll this last week and his poll idea was (briefly) as follows:

• election each month, on the 1st
  
• all Consuls wishing to carry on and all others who are nominated are in the election
  
• the two Consuls with the most votes, no matter how many votes that is, remain in office.
  
• Ouf of the remaining Consul and all the other nominees, the one with the highest number of votes becomes (or stays) the third Consul
  

This election ended with a pass result, but many teammembers stated their preferences lay in another format. BigFree decided (along with the other Consuls) to render this poll invalid due to this response.

THEN, Togas put up a new poll directed to help attract those who disagreed with BigFree's poll. His poll was essentially the same as BigFree's with one major difference:

• elections would be held every TWO months
  

This poll is still active, but concerns have been raised that, after BigFree's poll was deemed invalid, this new poll offers the same thing with only one difference, and no discussion has been undertaken since that first poll. Hence, this thread.

Regard this thread as the place we thrash out the exact form any different options for the amendment may take, and we must be certain we all understand each other and all the options this time. We also need to decide whether Togas' poll (should it pass) is enough to satisfy everyone. We want to be sure we get it right, and not have to deal with issues later if we can help it.

So, what options have been raised?

Decision 1 - Time between elections
This is a straightforward option, and we can pretty much have a nice easy poll for this independent of other things if we like. One, two or three months have been mentioned.

Decision 2 - How many Consuls' positions up each time?
There is a general agreement that only one Consular position should be up for grabs at a time so that the other two can help the new guy and also so that all of a sudden we don't rely on people who aren't sure what to do. We could in principle have two seats up at once, leaving one experienced Consul to help get the others up to speed.

Decision 3 - What form does this election take?
This is where there have been a couple of options brainstormed.

• BigFree's/Togas' poll proposal: all Consuls and new nominees voted on, where the top one/two polling Consuls remain and the top poller from the others (Consul or new nominee) becomes the third Consul
  

A few thoughts on this - the one or two Consuls remaining are a good idea to maintain the flow of the game. However, you can imagine a circumstance where all Consuls may poll lower than any of the new candidates, yet the top Consul(s) retain their jobs automatically. Thus it would seem the Consuls are "unpopular", yet at least one or two would remain as Consuls. This could be resolved a different way, as if there is sufficient unhappiness with a Consul that it is felt they must go, a CoC can be called. This has been an emotional situation so far however, and could lead to undue tensions. And what for instance happens in the case of a tie in the election?

• have only one Consul's seat up for grabs at each election. The Consul who is up for reelection is decided in rotation (eg this month it might be me, then nye next month, then BigFree the next...). There is an election with candidates made up from that Consul and any who are challenging for the Consulship
  

This way eliminates most of any potential competition between Consuls to retain Consul positions, as each Consul has a turn to be voted out. However if a Consul is wanted out (and a CoC is not called for fear of stirring up emotions), then up to three months must elapse before the chance to vote them out is given.

And now, briefly, my personal thoughts. Quite often in the criticism of each idea I have seen is the belief that there must be a way that Consuls can be replaced without competition against each other or without any ill feelings. It seems to me that either way could result in someone's feelings being hurt. What we may need to do is make each Consul very aware of the fact they may be the subject of a Change of Command, and be prepared to accept this. They need not give in to it willingly, but they must almost take a vow that they will not make the CoC caller uncomfortable about it, making CoCs a lot more attractive as an option to replace a Consul. As it is I know someone will really think twice before starting a CoC thread, but since the option is put in the Constitution for the times when a Consul should be replaced for the benefit of the team, we must be able to use it without the reluctance that surrounds it now.

The CoC should be a last resort however, after a warning that the Consul should improve in wherever they are lacking. Speaking retrospectively, I would have heeded such a warning carefully, and the CoC called on me would likely not have been needed. I'm not angry about it, but I think CoCs should be the action taken after every other option is exhausted.

So personally I believe either method could work, and we must be aware that if a situation occurs where two Consuls retaining their jobs in an election is unacceptable due to them not being considered to be good Consuls, we must be able to use CoCs. The same goes for if we don't want to wait two months or so to have the chance to vote a Consul out.

After that long, rambling post, I hope some sense can be read into this and we can decide for the team what to DO.

Blast away.

	24-06-2003 20:44									#2
	Re: Consul Elections Discussion thread Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt Decision 1 - Time between elections

Two months. Otherwise, we would simply have too many elections and consuls trying to stay in office instead of playing the game properly.

quote: Decision 2 - How many Consuls' positions up each time?

One at least, to allow new blood in. However, if a second Consul gets significantly less votes than a new candidate, he should expect a CoC or step down voluntarily.

quote: Decision 3 - What form does this election take?

Vote on all nominees at the same time - this avoids multiple rounds of voting.

As I've said in BF's poll - if we use a reference to time zones, let it be GMT.

	25-06-2003 03:37									#3
	Tired of ads?

I like nye's proposal, only slightly modified form one month, to two. It goes like this:


Every two months an election for a Consul position is held.

In the first election, the Consul with the longest tenure is the postion that is up for re-election. In this case it would be nye.

A thread is started by anyone who wants to run for that position up to a week before the election is to take place. A person who is nominated, must be seconded and the person who is nominated must declare his candidacy at least one day before the election.

This list of candidates, plus the Consul, who's spot is up for re-election, are all polled in an election, the one with the most votes takes that Consul position. In case of a tie vote; if one of the candidates, who is tied with the other(s) for the top spot, is a current Consul, then the current Consul retains his position. If the tie is between two or more non-Consuls, then a re-poll will take place with only those that tied at the top being included in the new election poll. In case that a tie exists between all candidates, the the two Consuls not up for re-election at that time will decide, in private, who will be the next Consul.

It could be the current Consul retains his position or another member has won it from him in the election.

Another election would be held in 2 months.

The Consul whose spot is up next is the one who has the longest tenure, but did not face a re-election poll in the last 6 months(That would be MrWIA in this case). In this way, if nye won the previous election, he would be protected from a re-election poll for two election periods.

This, in effect, gives Consuls a term of 6 months. After 6 months, their spot is up for re-election. If they win, they are secure in that spot for another 6 months. This goes on indefinately.

Of course the 6 month term of a Consul is still subject to a CoC at any time that is already provided by the Constitution.


I really like this idea. It gives continuity to the Consular positions and allows for democratic elections. If any of you "word smithes" out there can put this into a form acceptable for our Constitution, I would surely appreciate it.

It may seem a little wordy, but I wanted to cover cases of ties.

	25-06-2003 04:23									#4
	Suffering from ads?

This is much improved. I could try and do it

	25-06-2003 05:21									#5
	Inflate your Upload Space

How's this?

A) Apolyton will be lead by 3 Consuls

1. Every Second Month beginning on August 1st, 2003 an election will be held.

2. The Consul and his/her position with the longest term is put up for re-election. A week before the election for the Consul position is taking place a person sets up a thread for nominations.

3. When a person is nominated he/she must be seconded and the person must declare is candidacy 1 day before the election.

4. All of the candidates and the Consul is put up in a election poll. And the one with the most votes wins and becomes the Consul.

5. In case of a tie; if one of the candidates that tied was the previous Consul the previous Consul gets to retain their position. If two or more Non- Consuls have tied then there will be a repoll containing only the candidates that tied.

6. If all candidates tie the two remaining Consuls decide on the new Consul in private.

7. Each Consoul will have a term of 6 months. After their term of 6 months the position is up for election.

B) The Powers of the Consuls:

1. The Consuls have the authority to play the game.

2. The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act within the boundaries of the law.

3. The Consuls should follow legal minister orders unless forced by unforseen circumstances.

4. The Consuls appoint Ministers.

5. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.

6. Consuls may be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.

	25-06-2003 06:38									#6
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I really think we are making this election stuff more complicated then it has to be: i.e "Elections shall occur more than one but less than 3 months or in other words, every other month. However candidates who are taller than 170cm or were born on a Tuesday are ineligible during 'even' months and can only run during a lunar eclipse."

Elections every month (I would be willing to stretch it out for every other month, be besides NYE, I don't think we've had a Consul last that long in the game anyway :P). We'll rotate through each election. Election 1, Consul 1 is up. Election 2, Consul 2. Election 3, Consul 3. Election 4, Consul 1 again. Etc...

This way, each individual Consul still serves for nearly 3 months individually. They should be allowed to run again and as many times as they want.

I think this is much easier than throwing out all the positions, since with multiple Consuls up for re-election, it would be kind of hard to get meaningful results. A la, the example I posted in Togas' thread. It is quite possible that no candidate would have a majority. Well then what do we do? It's obvious most of the citizens don't want any candidate :P

I mean we could divide it so it's 3 individual elections each month, but that would also be hard. Would you have to choose who you are running against or is it random?

At the moment I think 1 consul election every month is probably the most logical step and it doesn't throw a huge kink in the system in the random event that we decide we want to throw out our whole government.

(I also still think the CoC option for the citizens should be preserved too. Kind of like an impeachment of sorts if a Consul does something really bad.)

	25-06-2003 06:43									#7
	Increase Your PM Length

Big Free, Nuclear Master, your proposal does not address the situation where 1 or more consul resigns during mid-term, due to Real Life/other situations.

Also, if such situation arise, the "Each consul would have a term of 6 months" will not be true. For example, let say, nye gets re-elected in Aug. MWIA resigns due to his RL studies in Sep, a fresh election is held and Nuclear Master is elected. So, in Oct, Big Free is now due for election, and in Dec, it's nye's turn, and Feb Nuclear Master. So, effectively nye term is 4 mths, not 6 mths. I hope the example is not too confusing

	25-06-2003 07:19									#8
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by rush Big Free, Nuclear Master, your proposal does not address the situation where 1 or more consul resigns during mid-term, due to Real Life/other situations. Also, if such situation arise, the "Each consul would have a term of 6 months" will not be true. For example, let say, nye gets re-elected in Aug. MWIA resigns due to his RL studies in Sep, a fresh election is held and Nuclear Master is elected. So, in Oct, Big Free is now due for election, and in Dec, it's nye's turn, and Feb Nuclear Master. So, effectively nye term is 4 mths, not 6 mths. I hope the example is not too confusing

For a Consul to resign, he has to call a CoC on himself. Then his post will be filled in a follwing election.

I can put into the porposal:

quote: If no Consul has reached a term of 6 months, then no re-election will be held at that time. At the next re-election period(which is every two months), if there is a Consul with 6 months or more in tenure, then a re-election will be held according to the Constitution.

WB: I understand you concern for not wanting this to be a 'wordy' or burdensome item inour Constitution. But, it is important that we cover all angles here so that problems don't crop up. We don't have a court system in the ISDG and I don't want one to be able to decide matters that are not clear. Therefore I ask that we make this amendment comprehensive so as to prohibit any pontential misinterpretations of its intent.

NM: Good job. I would only slightly alter the wording in this sentence-

"5. In case of a tie; if one of the candidates that tied was the previous Consul the previous Consul gets to retain their position. If two or more Non- Consuls have tied then there will be a repoll containing only the candidates that tied."

I would change it to this:

"5. In case of a tie; if one of the candidates that tied was the previous Consul, then the previous Consul gets to retains their position. If two or more Non- Consuls have tied then there will be a repoll containing only the candidates that tied.

I also want to add in the above mentioned clause about the 6 month terms.

	25-06-2003 10:47									#9
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Glad to see this is working - for the record I like the idea as it has been stated here as well.

We have heard so far from a couple of people, what about everyone else? If you voted against any of the polls up until now or just didn't like the proposals we have, please let us know your side.

And what about Togas' poll? By the Constitution it is perfectly valid, so if it passes shall we enact that, or is there enough support to poll again on this latest idea?

Let's keep the talking going - we want to know exactly what the team wants before we can do anything.

	25-06-2003 12:11									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I like the idea BigFree described - election every 1 or 2 (both is fine with me) months, with the "longest serving since last being elected" Consul having to go through an election poll with new candidates.

	25-06-2003 16:56									#11
	Increase Your PM Length

I would only support having concrete "terms" or "tenure" if elections were avery month. 6 months is WAY too long.

Perhaps the number of COnsuls could be changed to 4, and every month (or two months) two would be up for election. The top two vote-receivers in teh election would become Consuls.

	25-06-2003 16:59									#12
	Tired of ads?

Actually how many people would be willing to become a Consul?

I think that number is quite low.

	25-06-2003 17:28									#13
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

There is that, BFM and the reason that 3 Consuls were settled on in the first place, so that if the Consuls didn't agree unanimously there would be a majority of 2 whose favoured decision would pass. Originally 5 Consuls were asked for, but because not enough people wanted to become Consuls, 3 was chosen over 4 due to the possibility of an unproductive 2-2 split in decisions.

civman - why would 6 months per Consul be too much? If it was decided a new Consul really had to be elected in place of one specific person, a CoC can be served, and if they wanted to resign, a Consul can always serve a CoC on themselves!

Keep in mind we realistically anticipate no problems with any Consuls that cannot be worked out easily with a warning at most (the Civ3 SPDG - no Presidents have needed to be replaced, and so far two full Civ2DGs and no issues there...), but the CoC is there just in case.

	25-06-2003 19:19									#14
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Sure, a CoC can always be used, but I think it should only be a rare and special measure. The vast majority of Consuls should leave office (or be confirmed in office) by normal elections. I cannot imagine that anyone would have the time or will or etc to serve as a Consul for a full 6 months. It's possible, but even if there are no problems with the Consuls I would bet a majority would leave office by resignation (self-CoC), which IMHO defeats the entire point of having elections at all.

	25-06-2003 20:08									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would be a Consul if I could. Hows this now?

A) Apolyton will be lead by 3 Consuls

1. Every Second Month beginning on August 1st, 2003 an election will be held.

2. The Consul and his/her position with the longest term is put up for re-election. A week before the election for the Consul position is taking place a person sets up a thread for nominations.

3. When a person is nominated he/she must be seconded and the person must declare is candidacy 1 day before the election.

4. All of the candidates and the Consul is put up in a election poll. And the one with the most votes wins and becomes the Consul.

5. In case of a tie; if one of the candidates that tied was the previous Consul, then the previous Consul retains their position. If two or more Non- Consuls have tied then there will be a repoll containing only the candidates that tied.

6. If all candidates tie the two remaining Consuls decide on the new Consul in private.

7. Each Consul will have a term of 6 months. After their term of 6 months the position is up for election.

8.If no Consul has reached a term of 6 months, then no re-election will be held at that time. If at the next election a Consuls tenure is over 6 months his position is put into election.

B) The Powers of the Consuls:

1. The Consuls have the authority to play the game.

2. The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act within the boundaries of the law.

3. The Consuls should follow legal minister orders unless forced by unforseen circumstances.

4. The Consuls appoint Ministers.

5. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.

6. Consuls may be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.

	25-06-2003 20:51									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Good work NM.

Thanks.


Civman, if you think 6 months is too long for someone to be a Consul; I think 3 months is too short. 3 Months cover about 40 turns, hardly long enough to institute lasting policies. 6 months is just right.

	25-06-2003 22:59									#17
	Put an end to popups!

If anything, I think 3 months is too long, not too short. After all, if the people don't like a Consul's policies, why should they have time to make them lasting? If a consul deserves to institute lasting policies, they will be able to.

In any case, I would prefer having elections based on the original proposal (vote on all and replace the least popular) every 2 months or maybe 1 month.

Of course, I'm the extreme democrat who prefers democracy over quality of play ...

	25-06-2003 23:19									#18
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 If anything, I think 3 months is too long, not too short. After all, if the people don't like a Consul's policies, why should they have time to make them lasting? If a consul deserves to institute lasting policies, they will be able to.

On the same note, if people don't like a Consul's policies, a CoC is right there for them at any time.

I'm in favor of more game play continuity. If we shuffle leasers around too often, policies will get watered down and have little lasting effects.

	26-06-2003 05:38									#19
	Remove this text

I just have a question. Who is in favour of the new edited rules I posted?

	26-06-2003 07:28									#20
	Put an end to popups!

They look OK, Nuclear Master. Maybe a little brush up would be in order, but they are OK. We can look after details before posting a poll.

I might suggest a seperate poll for term lengths. Right now it looks like just two options, 3 months or 6.

Regarding all consuls up for election, but only some may be voted out... I can't see how it is democratic to give a consul a seat if he or she gets less votes than an aspiring citizen. I would say that is decidedly undemocratic. I can well imagine the fire works that could occur under the wrong circumstances. That is why I favour a one seat, winner takes all system. With only 1 consul at a time up for reelection, it ensures continuity and does not provide any circumstances for discord.

	26-06-2003 15:40									#21
	Tired of ads?

Well... as I said, I am quite happy with the re-election mechanism proposed (1 consular position for re-election, be it every 1 or 2 months). What I mind quite a lot, though, is a large part of the section "B)".

Especially:

B.2: The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act within the boundaries of the law.

I'm simply not cool with the "law system" as implemented by the current Constitution. I have not seen any laws created so far and can hardly imagine a situation where creating a law could actually solve a problem or a real game situation.

I just believe that whoever becomes a Consul, is to be trusted he will always do whatever he considers best for the team. This is what we actually expect from him. I am really not sure if it's better to empower Consuls with the "ultimate power" (that's what I would do) or have a mechanism actually forcing them to either break a law, doing what they consider the right thing, or obbey a law they deeply disagree with (that's what the majority here apparently wants).

Keep in mind that it would need TWO Consuls to feel the same way about something... if TWO Consuls feel like not following the (assumed/apparent/obvious) will of the team, is it not a good reason to ponder WHY? Could it be they know something others did not know when expressing this will (read: creating the law)? Could it be that the majority is simply wrong? And of course, it can simply mean that the majority of Consuls is simply wrong, yes.

B.3: The Consuls should follow legal minister orders unless forced by unforseen circumstances.

This is my primary problem with the Constitution. As I clearly said at the time I was still a Consul, I believe the Ministers should have only an ADVISORY role, not any EXECUTIVE power. My own experience showed that giving Ministers executive power would have been the way to hell.

B.4: The Consuls appoint Ministers.

Missing a word about replacing Ministers. It sounds strange to me that the Consuls have the power to appoint Ministers, but not replace them.

I do admit that what I would be happy with is actually a system based upon very strong powers given to the Consuls. But that's what I believe is the best way to handle things.

	26-06-2003 17:57									#22
	Increase Your PM Length

OK, so civman's position noted, are there other problems with what has been proposed by NukeMaster that aren't just the case of a little retouching? Let's give this until the next turn comes and goes, and then if there's nothing new to discuss let's get this biznitch voted on and hopefully out of the way.

vonD - those are more knotty issues, but for the moment I hope everyone can see that we should try and deal with the Consul election idea first, then put our minds to the other potential things to discuss about the Constitution. Once we are done here, we will move on to those things you mention.

Your silence is considered accepting the idea that NukeMaster's proposition (retouched and posted here within 12 hours hopefully) will be put up for poll without any firther changes, so speak now! I don't like putting the pressure on, but I want to see all this mess behind us as soon as reasonably possible.

	26-06-2003 19:49									#23
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

B) The Powers of the Consuls:

1. The Consuls have the authority to play the game.

2. The Consuls have the authority to make final game decisions, but must act to the best of their ability.

3. The Consuls need to consider the Ministers advice.

4. The Consuls appoint Ministers and may remove them.

5. The Consuls have the power to rule on senatorial disputes in a manner they see fit.

6. Consuls may be removed from office by a vote of No-Confidence.
A new section B? Is that better?

	26-06-2003 20:03									#24
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

MWIA - as I stated, I was ok with the re-election mechanism. One post up for reelection basically every 1 or 2 months is fine with me (no term length preference).

And I would be perfectly happy with the Section B if worded as in the NM's post above (though I'd prefer rewording or dropping the "but must act to the best of their ability" part altogether, as it sounds... dunno... strange). I am okay with the essence of that point, but would like to see it better expressed. Maybe: "The Consuls have the authority to make, according to the best of their ability, final game decisions.

But I suspect there will be more than one voice opposing such wording of the Section B...

	26-06-2003 20:43									#25
	Remove this text

I know I didnt word it perfectly. I just wanted to do a quick rough copy.

	26-06-2003 21:16									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

I like both your proposals NM, with vondracks one change.

I like the way you are getting yourself involved here.

	26-06-2003 22:04									#27
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Nuclear Master I know I didnt word it perfectly. I just wanted to do a quick rough copy.

Sorry - bad wording on my part here. I did not actually mean there will be more than one voice opposing your wording, but more than one voice opposing what those words in fact mean. Last time I proposed exactly what you say in your "rough" (but perfectly fine) copy, kind of a "peoples' uprising" followed.

	27-06-2003 00:23									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Thanks BigFree

	27-06-2003 01:23									#29
	Increase Your PM Length

to changing Section B. Ever since the debates and proposals for reform began, the basic idea was to make the game MORE democratic and to LIMIT the power of the Consuls. Unless a good deal of the people here have changed their minds, a strong majority still opposes taking away the formal limits of COnsular power.

	27-06-2003 02:04									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

Well are we going to poll the new stuff?