27-06-2003 03:06									#31
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Not quite yet, NM. It is best not to rush when new aspects of the discussion are just coming up. Being impatient is a good way to have a poll go down to defeat.

I think that we should poll on section A alone, when we do poll. The pressing issue right now is the selection and terms for the consuls. The powers and limits would deserve a seperate discussion and a poll of their own.

	27-06-2003 03:10									#32
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

Furthermore, I would suggest a preliminary poll. We should ask the people if they prefer the single seat, winner take all method; or the all names on the ballot with 2 consuls guaranteed to win method. That is the biggest question.

	27-06-2003 03:38									#33
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

civman - that may well be the case, but since no-one else seems to be posting word to that effect, we may just have to see what eventuates on poll day....
A poll should go up to the effect of nye's post above in the next few hours, where I get the time. If it doesn't, I am uncharacteristically busy, so could one of the other Consuls please do that?

	27-06-2003 06:41									#34
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by civman2000 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.

I can't speak for others, but in my own view :
MORE democratic - yes, I want that, and I am getting it via Election of Councils.
LIMIT the power - no, that's not i want.
Once the councils are elected, I would want them to be able to run the game and not to come back (to us) for every single decision. But if at the end of the day, they did not perform, we can always use the CoC.

Btw, I will vote YES to the amendment, just like I have voted YES to the Togas & Big Free polls.

	27-06-2003 07:58									#35
	Put an end to popups!

Before a final poll is put up, a redraft of this is in order. I have some points to make here.

quote: Originally posted by Nuclear Master 6. If all candidates tie the two remaining Consuls decide on the new Consul in private.

Do others feel OK with this or could we just repoll with all candidates will to participate in the repoll?

[/QUOTE]
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.
[/QUOTE]

This means to me that, if a Consul reaches 6 months and retains their Consulship seat, the next election would again be for this person, and again etc until they eventually left. Do we really want this or could we just keep the idea of rotating Consul elections? There is a possibility (though not much of one) that the first Consul to reach 6 months will have their position continually up for re-election, whereas the others might not have a reelection until that earlier Consul is eventually gone. The other way, we could have a Consul re-elected at the 6 month mark and be in for another 6 months if the other Consuls needed to have elections in rotation. Realistically, we can expect Consuls to voluntarily step down for one of a number of reasons before such a time.

What do you guys think about this clause? How should we alter it?

	27-06-2003 08:06									#36
	Put an end to popups!

Eh, I like the "original" idea still of an election every month for ONE consul. They end up having a 3 month term which is plenty of time in game time and in real time. So the rotating consulship or whatever we want to call this idea... this is what I like

Regarding the Consuls deciding a tie, I guess it is suitable, but what if the Consuls have a split decision as well? :-/

	27-06-2003 10:46									#37
	Put an end to popups!

quote: This means to me that, if a Consul reaches 6 months and retains their Consulship seat, the next election would again be for this person, and again etc until they eventually left. Do we really want this or could we just keep the idea of rotating Consul elections? There is a possibility (though not much of one) that the first Consul to reach 6 months will have their position continually up for re-election, whereas the others might not have a reelection until that earlier Consul is eventually gone. The other way, we could have a Consul re-elected at the 6 month mark and be in for another 6 months if the other Consuls needed to have elections in rotation. Realistically, we can expect Consuls to voluntarily step down for one of a number of reasons before such a time. What do you guys think about this clause? How should we alter it?

Change it (all references) to "6 months since being last elected" or simply have it understood that a won election starts a NEW TERM (counted from 0).

And civman... I understand there is a lot of people not happy about what I would like to see implemented in the Section B. But I have my good, experience backed reasons (and you can see now they're not "selfish", since I am calling for stronger consular powers even when being long gone from the post).

My main problem is that the Section B says (ATM) that Consuls are to follow Ministerial orders. That's what I consider FUNDAMENTALLY wrong. The Ministers are (or SHOULD BE) appointed so that they excel in their particular area of "interest" - the MoW should be more or less a skilled warmonger, the MoI should be more or less a skilled "builder" etc. It is quite natural and would be very understandable, that they would, if allowed, push "their" approach (this is no theory, this basically happened in the past), prioritizing "their" Ministry and its agenda.

The power to make decisions will always be with someone - either Ministers or Consuls. Ministers are here (IMHO) to take care of their agendas, providing Consuls with information allowing them (the Consuls) to watch the "big picture". That's what the Consuls are supposed to do - they wage the input from ALL their Ministers and make decisions, providing feedback to the Ministries, regarding the direction the state is going to go in.

Besides... I find it utterly nonsensical that the Consuls appoint Ministers, but cannot replace them, and even have to follow their orders. Having to follow orders of someone I appointed? Beg your pardon? Never heard about anything like this in the real life. Not even in the most democratic society. The power to appoint is always, quite naturally, accompanied by the power to remove/replace.

Plus, I am deeply convinced the "law system" as described and assumed by the current Constitution is not suitable/needed for this game. One bit of evidence is that we've hardly had any laws created, the adoption of AltSp probably being the exception proving the rule.

Re: Consuls breaking a poll tie... I would prefer a runoff poll. And if not, then all three current Consuls should be making the decision - that would prevent their tie.

	27-06-2003 12:28									#38
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by vondrack Change it (all references) to "6 months since being last elected" or simply have it understood that a won election starts a NEW TERM (counted from 0).

Yes, that is how it should be read. If a term of 6 months is given, then when an election is held a new term of 6 months is started. No term would be for longer than 6 months, though a Consul could get elected for consecutive terms.



I also agree with vondrack's proposals for section b.

If we have Consuls, then we should trust them to do the right things and not oder them to follow anyone elese order's or otherwise. If we no longer trust them, call a CoC. I would do it in a heartbeat if I thought a Consul didn't have a clue or wasn't looking out for our vbest interests, or was going against 99% of the teams wishes. Thankfully, none of that has happened, oris likely to happen.

Rush also hit it on the head earlier.

	27-06-2003 17:23									#39
	Full PM-box? Change here!

OK, I take back that the reason for reform was to make teh game more democratic and limit the Consul's power. It was to INCREASE PARTICIPATION. Two obvious ways to do this were and still are to put moredemocratic institutions into the game and strengthen the others. The #1 enemy of democracy in this game is the power of the Consuls. It is virtually unlimited. Taking away the only limits to their power (I really don't think 6-month terms are a significant limit at all, see my other posts) will just make things worse. I agree that Consuls should be able to replace ministers. ANd maybe they could have some limited authority to ignore their orders. But to abolish laws is too much. Even if they haven't been uesed, they still should: in fact, if we want to increase participation, we should actually start USING the power to make laws, not taking it away.



I'm going on vacation tomorrow, so remember to add a NO vote from me if there are 6 month terms or any changes to Section B.

	27-06-2003 20:30									#40
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Of course Consuls are able to replace Ministers. They can appoint them, so they can appoint new ones, too.

	28-06-2003 00:04									#41
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I thought so too BFM, but some people may say that the Constitution only says "appoint" not "replace." Especially in the case of a new Consul getting elected; does his voice not have to be heard in the appointment of Minister's...