Total Posts:23|Showing Posts:1-23
Jump to topic:

A Tripartite Presidency

Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:20:51 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Instead of the Presidency being composed of one member, why not elect a total amount of three, who each serve two months during the total 6-month period? I think this would increase the motivation to reach goals, as well as help resolve the issue of election drama. Rather than they be elected randomly, we should form three main parties, which everyone can join, and then let the party members all vote for who among them should represent them in the presidency.

It may be complex, but I can see it being positive. My country works in a similar fashion.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:29:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:25:23 PM, Raisor wrote:
This is functionally just shortening the term limit.
It should be extended to 12 months and rotated within that period. Not sure why I put it at 6. What do you think of electing presidents based on votes from party members?

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What will happen when edb8 attacks?
Better not think about it.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:33:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:20:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
Instead of the Presidency being composed of one member, why not elect a total amount of three, who each serve two months during the total 6-month period? I think this would increase the motivation to reach goals, as well as help resolve the issue of election drama. Rather than they be elected randomly, we should form three main parties, which everyone can join, and then let the party members all vote for who among them should represent them in the presidency.

It may be complex, but I can see it being positive. My country works in a similar fashion.

A three member executive council is a great idea... As it stands 50% of the site will be ticked off after the election results. I would prefer it just be from voters as a whole, however, not parties. Parties can exist, but there is no need to create three parties. Also I think six months is, if anything, too short.

So what I suggest if a three member executive council - each member elected at-large. Each qualifying member gets three votes, and can cast them in any way they like among all the candidates. The three candidates with the most votes win.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:34:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:33:28 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:20:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
Instead of the Presidency being composed of one member, why not elect a total amount of three, who each serve two months during the total 6-month period? I think this would increase the motivation to reach goals, as well as help resolve the issue of election drama. Rather than they be elected randomly, we should form three main parties, which everyone can join, and then let the party members all vote for who among them should represent them in the presidency.

It may be complex, but I can see it being positive. My country works in a similar fashion.

A three member executive council is a great idea... As it stands 50% of the site will be ticked off after the election results. I would prefer it just be from voters as a whole, however, not parties. Parties can exist, but there is no need to create three parties. Also I think six months is, if anything, too short.

So what I suggest if a three member executive council - each member elected at-large. Each qualifying member gets three votes, and can cast them in any way they like among all the candidates. The three candidates with the most votes win.

Actually, let me rephrase that. One council leader (elected to a one-year term), and four at-large members (elected to six-month terms). Voting format is the same, just with four votes in midterms and one vote in council leader elections.
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:36:50 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:25:23 PM, Raisor wrote:
This is functionally just shortening the term limit.

Also:

http://en.wikipedia.org...

What will happen when edb8 attacks?

Edeb8 does not match the level of Hannibal's badassery.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:42:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:33:28 PM, TN05 wrote:
A three member executive council is a great idea... As it stands 50% of the site will be ticked off after the election results.
Indeed. My proposal would very likely give the opposite effect.

I would prefer it just be from voters as a whole, however, not parties. Parties can exist, but there is no need to create three parties. Also I think six months is, if anything, too short.
The 6 months should be 12. I would correct the OP, but cannot. Three members without a party is fine - they should, however, represent a varying set of views.

So what I suggest if a three member executive council - each member elected at-large. Each qualifying member gets three votes, and can cast them in any way they like among all the candidates. The three candidates with the most votes win.
In addition to what I said above, the rotation should happen every 2 months, which gives each candidate a total of 4 months in a year to enact their ideas.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:47:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:34:39 PM, TN05 wrote:
Actually, let me rephrase that. One council leader (elected to a one-year term), and four at-large members (elected to six-month terms). Voting format is the same, just with four votes in midterms and one vote in council leader elections.
I find the moderator to be the head of such a system. Four seems sort of vast. Three is broad enough to represent the site as a whole.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:54:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:42:47 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:33:28 PM, TN05 wrote:
A three member executive council is a great idea... As it stands 50% of the site will be ticked off after the election results.
Indeed. My proposal would very likely give the opposite effect.

I would prefer it just be from voters as a whole, however, not parties. Parties can exist, but there is no need to create three parties. Also I think six months is, if anything, too short.
The 6 months should be 12. I would correct the OP, but cannot. Three members without a party is fine - they should, however, represent a varying set of views.

I agree, which is why at-large voting would work IMO. If you pick the top three, we'd like have at one one dissenting view in there. If you stagger elections, only one candidate will win and thus 50% of more will be made. If you do top-three wins and all three are elected in one election, you have a greater chance of more diverse views.

So what I suggest if a three member executive council - each member elected at-large. Each qualifying member gets three votes, and can cast them in any way they like among all the candidates. The three candidates with the most votes win.
In addition to what I said above, the rotation should happen every 2 months, which gives each candidate a total of 4 months in a year to enact their ideas.

If it's three members, wouldn't every four months make more sense? All three would face re-election at the same year. I prefer all elected at once, though.
bluesteel
Posts: 12,301
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 10:55:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:25:23 PM, Raisor wrote:
This is functionally just shortening the term limit.
You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into - Jonathan Swift (paraphrase)
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:01:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:54:21 PM, TN05 wrote:
I agree, which is why at-large voting would work IMO. If you pick the top three, we'd like have at one one dissenting view in there. If you stagger elections, only one candidate will win and thus 50% of more will be made. If you do top-three wins and all three are elected in one election, you have a greater chance of more diverse views.
I agree with the voting.

If it's three members, wouldn't every four months make more sense? All three would face re-election at the same year. I prefer all elected at once, though.
Consecutive four months would be more of shortening the term, while a rotational term of two months would give a more diverse application of policies, and within a shorter range of time.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
If it seems like shortening the term (it's not exactly), that's because making it more detailed would probably not attract anyone's interest now. I'm more in for ideas rather than creating the whole system right now.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:03:17 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:01:42 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2014 10:54:21 PM, TN05 wrote:
I agree, which is why at-large voting would work IMO. If you pick the top three, we'd like have at one one dissenting view in there. If you stagger elections, only one candidate will win and thus 50% of more will be made. If you do top-three wins and all three are elected in one election, you have a greater chance of more diverse views.
I agree with the voting.

If it's three members, wouldn't every four months make more sense? All three would face re-election at the same year. I prefer all elected at once, though.
Consecutive four months would be more of shortening the term, while a rotational term of two months would give a more diverse application of policies, and within a shorter range of time.

Two months just seems way too short IMO. That's barely any time to accomplish anything.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:06:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Ideally, this is what a DDO Executive Council would look like (to me).
*Four at-large members, elected for a fixed term of 1 year. The DDO Executive Council would have the same powers as the current Presidency.
*The moderator (currently Airmax) would be council leader. This role could vary - it could be a voting role, or one where the mod can veto.
*Elections for two seats are held every 6 months, and the top two vote-getters are elected to the DDO Executive Council (which would have the same status as the current Presidency). Terms are staggered, so seats 1 and 2 would be contested, then six months later seats 3 and 4 would be contested. Qualified members can cast two votes, which can be afforded among the candidates however they wish.
*There would be some kind of recall mechanism for early elections if need be. Obviously if a Council member leaves or is banned, there would be an election to fill out their term.

This would fundamentally resolve the current issue IMO. By having four at-large members, there would be elections just as often as now, but terms would be longer and thus a better relationship with Juggle could be formed. This could also work by having six seats elected to four-month terms (or staggered to be two seats up every four months) or eight seats elected to two-month terms (or staggered to be two seats up every two months), but the shorter the term the worse IMO. Also, by taking the top-two vote-getters, most everyone will be happy.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:06:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:03:17 PM, TN05 wrote:
Two months just seems way too short IMO. That's barely any time to accomplish anything.
What can you think of that needs more time accomplishing?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:09:08 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:06:46 PM, Mirza wrote:
At 12/13/2014 11:03:17 PM, TN05 wrote:
Two months just seems way too short IMO. That's barely any time to accomplish anything.
What can you think of that needs more time accomplishing?

Establishing a relationship with Juggle. I don't think having elections every two months is bad, but two months is a very short time to establish a working relationship with Juggle and enacting an agenda to please voters and improve the site. People will be bound to be disappointed.

I would prefer staggered terms, but having six members would be way too much. I prefer four just so there can be two elections every six months.
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/13/2014 11:12:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 11:09:08 PM, TN05 wrote:
Establishing a relationship with Juggle. I don't think having elections every two months is bad, but two months is a very short time to establish a working relationship with Juggle and enacting an agenda to please voters and improve the site. People will be bound to be disappointed.
The presidency would function as one organ with regard to relations with Juggle. Every acting presidential member would try to push for updates with Juggle during his term - and when/if they enact it, he would get the credit even if the changes were to come after his term.

I would prefer staggered terms, but having six members would be way too much. I prefer four just so there can be two elections every six months.
If there were three, the elections would be once a year. There would be less drama. There would be fewer ridiculous campaign promises, and more willingness and motivation for contributing toward progress without there being made an exaggerated status of one's role.
dtaylor971
Posts: 1,907
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 2:09:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/13/2014 10:20:51 PM, Mirza wrote:
Instead of the Presidency being composed of one member, why not elect a total amount of three, who each serve two months during the total 6-month period? I think this would increase the motivation to reach goals, as well as help resolve the issue of election drama. Rather than they be elected randomly, we should form three main parties, which everyone can join, and then let the party members all vote for who among them should represent them in the presidency.

It may be complex, but I can see it being positive. My country works in a similar fashion.

That's an interesting idea... I don't know if it would work here though. For starters, we only have two serious people doing it. Second, we can barely withstand something as simple as a single election... how are we supposed to withstand a 3-way?

It is a good idea, but it should be saved for when there are more of us, and when we all have harder cores and can withstand this three-way.
"I don't know why gays want to marry, I have spent the last 25 years wishing I wasn't allowed to." -Sadolite
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 10:40:49 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 2:09:18 AM, dtaylor971 wrote:
That's an interesting idea... I don't know if it would work here though. For starters, we only have two serious people doing it. Second, we can barely withstand something as simple as a single election... how are we supposed to withstand a 3-way?
A system can be worked out to make the elections much more smooth and representative. That's why I proposed parties, so that the members within can choose a candidate.

It is a good idea, but it should be saved for when there are more of us, and when we all have harder cores and can withstand this three-way.
The concept is fine the way I imagine it being. It would have to be shaped up in much more detail, however. I know most are probably not interested in changing the system drastically, so I will not waste time constructing it.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 11:36:12 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
How about this: all candidates implement their campaign platforms regardless of whether or not they win. That means they will still contribute to the site in a positive and enthusiastic way. If and when the community decides to petition Juggle, 1 of the 2 candidates... or anyone really... can contact Juggle on the group's behalf. Juggle can choose to respond selectively or to one user the group decides. I don't see why the president elect even matters enough to have a platform (I know I'm repeating myself but seriously) if they are representing the community and not themselves. In that case, half the site shouldn't be "ticked off" as you say regardless of who wins, because it doesn't matter which person is contacting Juggle on behalf of the majority. Either candidate would be saying the same thing. And if both candidates care as much about DDO as they claim to in their barraging threads and e-mails, why not just carry out their platforms anyway?

Both are already recognized as awesome, active, admirable site members. I'm sure Juggle would respond to either one of them. I agree with streamlining communication, but again, why does it matter who contacts Juggle if they are just going to be representing the group consensus anyway? Another suggestion: since this election is particularly close, I don't see why Mikal and Blade couldn't co-pres for the entire term. That way if one slacks off, the other could help. They could discuss amongst themselves who should contact Juggle and when. They would still feel special and recognized enough with a pretty title to do cool things for the site (while the rest of us struggle with an existential reason to participate lol). And in 6 months, most people will probably not want to go through this again and just let them keep their little titles and the site running smoothly as-is.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 11:41:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 11:36:12 AM, Danielle wrote:
How about this: all candidates implement their campaign platforms regardless of whether or not they win. That means they will still contribute to the site in a positive and enthusiastic way. If and when the community decides to petition Juggle, 1 of the 2 candidates... or anyone really... can contact Juggle on the group's behalf. Juggle can choose to respond selectively or to one user the group decides. I don't see why the president elect even matters enough to have a platform (I know I'm repeating myself but seriously) if they are representing the community and not themselves. In that case, half the site shouldn't be "ticked off" as you say regardless of who wins, because it doesn't matter which person is contacting Juggle on behalf of the majority. Either candidate would be saying the same thing. And if both candidates care as much about DDO as they claim to in their barraging threads and e-mails, why not just carry out their platforms anyway?
I'm all for reforming the way it works, and your proposal seems acceptable. It is up for the community to decide what they want out of the presidency, for the way it has played out in recent days it out of control and unnecessary. Contacting Juggle should be a collective issue - choosing a Representative, not President, should, then, be the option.

Both are already recognized as awesome, active, admirable site members. I'm sure Juggle would respond to either one of them. I agree with streamlining communication, but again, why does it matter who contacts Juggle if they are just going to be representing the group consensus anyway? Another suggestion: since this election is particularly close, I don't see why Mikal and Blade couldn't co-pres for the entire term. That way if one slacks off, the other could help. They could discuss amongst themselves who should contact Juggle and when. They would still feel special and recognized enough with a pretty title to do cool things for the site (while the rest of us struggle with an existential reason to participate lol). And in 6 months, most people will probably not want to go through this again and just let them keep their little titles and the site running smoothly as-is.
I've pondered over a shared Presidency, and considering how similar the platforms are, it would certainly not be an issue. However, I very much doubt it will be changed now, for whoever is in the leading position near the end will rather keep it that way.
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 11:43:31 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm running for president in 2016. I need time to build up my supporters. Mikal and Blade are my co-VPs. I would mostly serve as a figurehead role for wise words based on my thoughtful highdeas that have manifested in old age. And I'd let them do all the work.
President of DDO
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/14/2014 11:43:50 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/14/2014 11:43:31 AM, Danielle wrote:
I'm running for president in 2016. I need time to build up my supporters. Mikal and Blade are my co-VPs. I would mostly serve as a figurehead role for wise words based on my thoughtful highdeas that have manifested in old age. And I'd let them do all the work.
That signature... Ha ha.