Wildcard Submission

[Common-Sense Politics]

On the other hand, I think the point that the candidates typically gain their support through the platform is very important.

Even if it's a fallacy.

This change would formalize the status quo of voting based on experience rather than campaign.

No, it wouldn't. This has nothing to do with how someone votes. By signing a candidate's petition you are simply acknowledging that they should be on the ballot, not that you're voting for them. Nobody has committed their vote by simply granting their signature.

 

[Klatonia]

This change would formalize the status quo of voting based on experience rather than campaign.

That horse has left the barn already.

 

[Boomer]

I'm opposed to this. Remember my candidacy last September? (ironically against WL) I had zero political experience in Euro, save for two newbie Senate runs that got me seven votes combined. But I argued my ideas, showed up and debated, and wound up with 12 of 57 votes without much experience.

Let's not discount newcomers just because they don't have the name recognition.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I'm opposed to this. Remember my candidacy last September? (ironically against WL) I had zero political experience in Euro, save for two newbie Senate runs that got me seven votes combined. But I argued my ideas, showed up and debated, and wound up with 12 of 57 votes without much experience.

Let's not discount newcomers just because they don't have the name recognition.

Yes, I do remember it. Songs will be sung about its lasting contribution to the region. This has nothing to do with new or old. It has to do with competent and not, relevant and not. I'm also not so sure if that's ironic.

 

[GraVandius]

I'm opposed to this. Remember my candidacy last September? (ironically against WL) I had zero political experience in Euro, save for two newbie Senate runs that got me seven votes combined. But I argued my ideas, showed up and debated, and wound up with 12 of 57 votes without much experience.

Let's not discount newcomers just because they don't have the name recognition.

Yes, I do remember it. Songs will be sung about its lasting contribution to the region. This has nothing to do with new or old. It has to do with competent and not, relevant and not. I'm also not so sure if that's ironic.

no no it does not. This proposal is ridiculous because the point of standing and posting a platfourm is so that people can ask you questions to prove to the whole populace that you are competent and have knowledge of the issues.

 

[Trinnien]

Admittedly the CoR gives the right to standing but in a very strict reading not a right to being on a ballot. Historically, we have treated this as one and the same but there is potential for legislative leeway there such as a platform is required for you name to appear on the ballot.

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

I'm opposed to this. Remember my candidacy last September? (ironically against WL) I had zero political experience in Euro, save for two newbie Senate runs that got me seven votes combined. But I argued my ideas, showed up and debated, and wound up with 12 of 57 votes without much experience.

Let's not discount newcomers just because they don't have the name recognition.

Yes, I do remember it. Songs will be sung about its lasting contribution to the region. This has nothing to do with new or old. It has to do with competent and not, relevant and not. I'm also not so sure if that's ironic.

no no it does not. This proposal is ridiculous because the point of standing and posting a platfourm is so that people can ask you questions to prove to the whole populace that you are competent and have knowledge of the issues.

It's ridiculous. Is it? Ridiculous?

 

[Aexnidaral]

Heheh...

You make a few points that I definitely agree with CSP-- though I would maybe change some of your requirements, especially when and where petitions are necessary for qualification. IMO, qualifying by petition would be best done on a campaign thread rather than needing it at standing. To make this analogous to RL (at least in Florida): you don't need your qualification petitions when you announce your candidacy, you just need them before the qualifying period is over and ballots are printed. So, here that would mean that anyone could run, but to qualify for the ballot you'd need (A) to make a campaign thread and (B) have X people to post in your thread signing a preformatted petition ("I, [Signatory] the undersigned, a Citizen and voter in Europeia petition to have the name of [Candidate] placed on the ballot for as a candidate for President.") ((literally just ripped the wording from this))

In my opinion this would be the most "fair" way to approach qualifying petitions. It lets anyone stand to run, but forces qualifying to be done as part of the campaign. Also it accomplishes my secret goal of punishing people who don't post platforms. :violentgun:

 

[calimaki]

Heheh...

You make a few points that I definitely agree with CSP-- though I would maybe change some of your requirements, especially when and where petitions are necessary for qualification. IMO, qualifying by petition would be best done on a campaign thread rather than needing it at standing. To make this analogous to RL (at least in Florida): you don't need your qualification petitions when you announce your candidacy, you just need them before the qualifying period is over and ballots are printed. So, here that would mean that anyone could run, but to qualify for the ballot you'd need (A) to make a campaign thread and (B) have X people to post in your thread signing a preformatted petition ("I, [Signatory] the undersigned, a Citizen and voter in Europeia petition to have the name of [Candidate] placed on the ballot for as a candidate for President.") ((literally just ripped the wording from this))

In my opinion this would be the most "fair" way to approach qualifying petitions. It lets anyone stand to run, but forces qualifying to be done as part of the campaign. Also it accomplishes my secret goal of punishing people who don't post platforms. :violentgun:

I think this is a great compromise.

 

[Anumia]

I have never been in favour of punishing those who do not post platforms. The political culture was successfully changed by Mouse to do so anyway, so there is certainly no need to put official backing behind it.

 

[Boomer]

Again, I don't see the need for this. If people don't post platforms, they won't win anyway.

 

[Kraketopia]

I think petitions and the like would go against the Europeian core principles of democracy. Let's not make the entry process any more challenging for newcomers. If a dumb joke ticket stands, punish it appropriately through the polls and comments on their thread. And let's be honest here, many dumb joke tickets would probably get enough petitioners to sign their petition anyways, unless you set an absurdly high standard.

 

[Anumia]

^

Really the solution is just to exile either Aditya or CSP. A debate shall now be held for who we should keep

 

[Cpt.Carrot]

^

Really the solution is just to exile either Aditya or CSP. A debate shall now be held for who we should keep

Why not both? h43r: Two exiles is more fun than one, after all :evil:

 

[Common-Sense Politics]

^

Really the solution is just to exile either Aditya or CSP. A debate shall now be held for who we should keep

I guarantee you I lose that vote.

 

[Mousebumples]

I have never been in favour of punishing those who do not post platforms. The political culture was successfully changed by Mouse to do so anyway, so there is certainly no need to put official backing behind it.

Thank you. I shall count that as a win. :gentleman:

For the record, rather than having a threshold to appear on the ballot, I'd rather see Re-Open Nominations appear on each Presidential ballot, regardless of the number of candidates. Whether those votes affect how votes are counted (i.e. abstention, so not included when counting to >50% versus needing 50% including those votes) is certainly open to debate. And we'll hear complaining and arguments that if someone wasn't going to run in the first place, maybe they shouldn't run at all, etc.

However, while there is a non-zero chance that Aditya (or others of similar experience could win), the larger concern that I have with such hypothetical candidacies is that it removes the possibility of voting for "None of the Above" or "Re-Open Nominations" (or whatever you want to call it). So that would be my preferred option to resolve my primary concern here.

 

[Anumia]

If we do not muster any decent opposing candidate in the timespan provided, then we should live with the result.

 

[Fortunado]

If we do not muster any decent opposing candidate in the timespan provided, then we should live with the result.

if we do not muster any decent candidate, than it is nondemocratic. For example, if nobody likes the only guy there, but nobody steps up (a likely scenario; they may not consider themselves qualified, or not find a vp or otherwise), than he does not represent the people. At that point he becomes the minority, while the silent majority wishes for a re-opening.

 

[Anumia]

I am never terribly interested about the "silent majority", which can be appended to support any side of any argument, since, y'know, they are silent. Someone better should run. Someone from that silent majority should run.

 

[Lethen]

I am never terribly interested about the "silent majority", which can be appended to support any side of any argument, since, y'know, they are silent. Someone better should run. Someone from that silent majority should run.

But what if the people disagree with you rly: