| Welcome to The Legacy Project. We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| Elections | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Jun 1 2006, 07:49 PM (2,612 Views) | |
| TomRK1089 | Jun 1 2006, 07:49 PM Post #1 |
Magnum PI
  ![]](http://z2.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)
|
In this thread, tell us how you'd like to see elections carried out. What percentage should be required? What's the voting age? How many candidates can run? Etc etc. Also talk about discipline: if an RM or DM goes sour, how do we get rid of them? How do we make sure that it's used fairly? |
|
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. Evan Esar, Esar's Comic Dictionary | |
 |
 
|
| Zephir | Jun 4 2006, 05:57 AM Post #2 |
There is no such thing as a good tax.
|
Well, I don't have much to offer to this... Yet. I'll give it some thought. However, right now, I do have some thoughts. Voting age isn't really something that is exactly sound. As soon as the person is able to make logical decisions of a political nature, they should be recieving their voting rights. I dont' care if the voter isn't able to reach the platform. ...On second thought, probably should be a height restraint. Must be this tall to ride the voting machine. XD As for RMs and DMs going sour, just have a monthly checkup on them. That should filter out most of the sour ones. |
 "I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." Winston Churchill "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill | |
|
|
|
| k2323 | Jun 4 2006, 02:10 PM Post #3 |
Changing the world one step at a time
|
Voting for RMs I think over 50 percent should be the required percentage. Otherwise, we'd be taking a risk. Also, RMs are both representing country and nations, local areas, and regions? |
|
|
|
| TomRK1089 | Jun 4 2006, 08:51 PM Post #4 |
|
Magnum PI
|
Check the main thread, yes? It's local level electinos. Each local level contributes one or two RMs to represent them at the larger regional meetings. Zephir, by getting rid of the bad apples, I mean what's our legislature for that? A vote by the populace? A vote by the RMs? A criminal conviction? |
|
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. Evan Esar, Esar's Comic Dictionary | |
|
|
|
| Patrick Beverley | Jun 8 2006, 07:49 AM Post #5 |
Newbie
|
Also, an attempt at some form of Pure Democracy would be a good idea, ie people directly voting for or against new legislation, rather than electing officials to do so for them. |
| Still angry. | |
|
|
|
| slim | Jun 8 2006, 12:37 PM Post #6 |
Social thinker.
|
Like referendums? On a tangent. ive just had a thought about voting ages. As said above, voting should be made accessible to those who are politically aware. Mybe there should be a free test to gain citizenship and voting rights. It would mean that under 18s with political views such as myself could vote and contribute rather than have decisions made for me and my future by someone who in my view is unelected by me therefore having no right to rule me. It would also mean that people ignorant of politics are not swayed by political party propaganda or swayed to an extreme right political stance (usually associated with uneducated ignorance). Back to the subject... Referendums are good but they undermine the sovereignty of the state. A good thing currently but if the state was the ultimate democratic institution that it should be then it would undermine this. A careful consideration is needed here if you want to progress this line of thought further. |
|
|
|
| TomRK1089 | Jun 8 2006, 04:28 PM Post #7 |
|
Magnum PI
|
Referendums are a progressive development, and a boon to citizens. It's very hard to abuse them; if you don't have the support to carry the vote, then you can't really force someone to pass it. I'm seeing some slight modifications. For instance, a referendum requires twenty percent of the area supporting it to even come to a vote. If you don't have 20%, you're not going to have the majority necessary to pass. While we're on that tangent, what are your views on majority? Should it be a simple majority, anything over 50%? I advise we look at how King George views 51% as a 'mandate.' |
|
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. Evan Esar, Esar's Comic Dictionary | |
|
|
|
| slim | Jun 12 2006, 01:39 PM Post #8 |
|
Social thinker.
|
A referendum with 51% support in favour or against should not be viewed as a mandate. it should be two thirds majority to be fair. The referendum questions should also be carefully considered as a question should not alienate minorities e.g. Should all immigrants be deported... this kind of question should not be presented. There would need to be a panel to debate possible questions and wordings. Referendums in the UK do not have to be taken as mandate if successful. They can be used as political ammunition to foward a policy. Support does not mean a policy has to be made. I dont know whether this is a good thing or a bad thing for the legacy. One question that hasnt been raised is the size of an "area"... Should they be uniform in size with the same number of citizens giving officers similar authority regardless of the size of the territory they manage, or should they be in differing constituencies depending on the talents and qualities of the manager leaving scope for their promotion and making sure they do their job efficiently? |
|
|
|
| Zephir | Jun 12 2006, 06:47 PM Post #9 |
|
There is no such thing as a good tax.
|
Minorities? I think acknowledging them as anything other than people is rather racist. Just word it as you would word it to a group of people. As for immigration, I don't think there should be any limits on it anyway. You'll have to let the RMs and DMs know that you're there anyway so you'll get resources, so I don't see that being a problem. As for size, probably the later. Cater to the talents of the person so they can cater to the needs of the people. Basically, whatever works best. |
|
"I am prepared to meet my Maker. Whether my Maker is prepared for the great ordeal of meeting me is another matter." Winston Churchill "You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life." Winston Churchill | |
|
|
|
| TomRK1089 | Jun 12 2006, 07:12 PM Post #10 |
|
Magnum PI
|
Whenever I talk about regions, I've been invisioning these divided simply by time zones...easy enough to use an existing division. |
|
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. Evan Esar, Esar's Comic Dictionary | |
|
|
|
| Assassin | Jun 21 2006, 02:47 PM Post #11 |
The lefty guy
|
Depends what the vote is on. RMs/DMs/LEs? Majority, no matter how small that majority might be - otherwise you might end up with nobody in the position, leading to a deadlock of resources because theres nobody to organise their distribution/transportation. Anything else, it again depends on the subject of the vote.
As many as are qualified to do the job and wish to do so.
Simple. There not RMs/DMs/LEs anymore. The problem is knowing when one goes sour.
I agree with Zeph on that one - as soon as they can make logical decisions. If thats at the age of 10, then so be it, I dont see any reason to deny them voting rights.
No, since it would exclude dwarves. There should just be an extra voting platform at a different hight.
Local areas only. Maybe one for a town the size of Gatley.
I say vote by the populace, following the investigation.
I believe that system was part of the idea right from the onset. |
|
"Shoot, coward, you will only kill a man." - Che Guevera "Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure." - Nelson Mandela Project Legacy - Building the Future 
| |
|
|
|
| TomRK1089 | Sep 8 2006, 05:38 PM Post #12 |
|
Magnum PI
|
Any more thoughts on this? Have we agreed as to what constitutes a 'majority?' 50% +1? 2/3rds? 75%? |
|
Think twice before you speak, and then you may be able to say something more insulting than if you spoke right out at once. Evan Esar, Esar's Comic Dictionary | |
|
|
|
| Assassin | Sep 11 2006, 11:43 AM Post #13 |
|
The lefty guy
|
I suppose it would have to depend on the extent of the changes the proposed bill would make. The most menial bills could be passed on 50.0*1% in favour. Anything that would compromise inalienable rights, for example, would need a 99.99% majority, so that it would only be possible to pass such a bill if at least some of the people it would adversely effect voted in favour of it. |
|
"Shoot, coward, you will only kill a man." - Che Guevera "Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure." - Nelson Mandela Project Legacy - Building the Future
| |
|
|
|
| harmony_kh_kairi | Sep 14 2006, 09:48 AM Post #14 |
Ichinichi Ichizen "One Good Deed A Day"
|
OKay yes I completely agree that the voting age needs tweaked and that there are many young people out there who have great polotical veiws but what about those who only have political veiws that are influenced by their parents. For example but obviously not having to do with legacy. If a child comes from a family that all support republican veiws then the child can be influenced to only support republican veiws and not have opinions of their own based on their own beliefs and what they see to be right or wrong. A young person is very susetable to influence by close relations and therefore such highly influence children should be somehow weeded out seeing as they don't really have their own veiws and beliefs on politics, rather they only believe what they are told is right to vote for. This should highly be taken into consideration as it could cause problems in the other matters at hand in this topic specifically a sour DM or RM. If the parents support a sour RM or DM and their child passes the test to cote then they could influence the child to vote to keep the RM or DM in question in their position. It also leads to other problems as well in the polls and needs to be kept in check which is why the voting age has always been so high. So that by that time the person has their own ideas and beliefs and are not so easily influenced to make choices based on what their family tells them. Also a safe guard on minority opinions (yes Zeph you know as well as I that I'm no where near racist but this is still a plausible worry). For example you can elliminate any differences in race, sex, religion, and age when it comes to the matter of voting on certain opinions and there will still be minority groups: a group smaller in number than the others that supports a different opinon. So that's why I worded myself thus (minority 'opinions' not minoity factions). So why is this a problem if so few support such an idea. Well because for example you may have a possible law being voted on that would only majorly effect people in a certain area of industry or in a certain region. Those not effected adversely by the law are larger by far in number and therefore the law has a high percentage of being passed and therefore allienating the minority group who have no chance at keeping the law from being passed even though it greatly effects them adversely. There has to be a fail safe for such circumstances which I'm foreseeing happening often under Legacy because of the way it is structured. What may be good for a large majority will inevitably, greatly effect a small group adversely. As for what such a fail safe should be I still thinking on that but I just wanted to bring the matter to attention and see if anyone has any ideas. I agree with Tom on the time zone division. Making use of existing lines of division make implication easier and cause less problems than implimenting a whole new plan. As for what percentage makes a law passable or not is a matter of determining what kind of law it is and how many people such a law would effect (either positively or adversely). A larger number effected a larger percentage of votes that is necessary to pass. And like Alan mentioned anything going into the territory of human rights and such should hands down be passable only with 99.9% in favour of votes. Therefore possibly a system of catagorializing laws in order to determine how much they effect the populice and therefore how much of a percentage constitutes majority approval to pass them in a democratic vote. Please excuse my spelling and such as it is 5:47 am here and I have yet to be to bed. |
| |
|
|
|
| Assassin | Sep 14 2006, 12:01 PM Post #15 |
|
The lefty guy
|
Most of them will continue to have those views as they age beyond the age restrictions, so lowering the voting age wont CREATE that problem, because its already there.
The quasi-permanent constitution would protect minorities. Your right though, it can only protect them to a certain extent, so this is a problem we need to find a way round. |
|
"Shoot, coward, you will only kill a man." - Che Guevera "Our greatest fear is not that we are inadequate, but that we are powerful beyond measure." - Nelson Mandela Project Legacy - Building the Future
| |
|
|
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Authority Positions · Next Topic » |
6:51 AM Jul 13