By the Ballot: An Elective Succession Game
- Thread starter Tabanese
- Start date
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
The Voting process is closed. The results are in.
In the election category,:
Tabanese was voted for by Tabanese, 1anrs and Andre Massena.
Horse in the Window was voted for by AsdfeZxcas, Vidmizz and Coyotebeast.
Thus, we have a tie between the creator of this trend and a mysterious horse gif. I've never felt like my life has being more meaningful that it is right now.
According to a strict reading of the rules (the letter of the law), as no majority exists (see Section 2, Article 6), this vote cannot be concluded and we are thus in voting limbo. Exacerbating this issue (thank you Sean of the Dead), the votes may meet all criteria of Section 2, Article 3, depending on which philosophical school of meaning one draws from. However, a liberal reading of the rules (the spirit of the law) would acknowledge the spurious nature of the vote for a gif and conclude that I'd being voted in. In order not to bog this all down, I'd decide upon two things.
1) Grant myself a second term. Muhahahaha!
2) Ask the forum what we should do about ties and possibly, even what sensible means. I'll elaborate below.
So, Tabanese has won the election via military coup. Huzzah!
In the slider category,:
Free Trade was voted for by: Cacra.
Free Subjects was voted for by: Vidmizz, Panzer Commander, Andre Massena, CoyoteBeast and 1anrs.
Quality was voted for by: Tabanese.
A lot less ambiguous, the next slider change shall be towards liberation of the Serfs.
The winners of the 'Call-It' award this week are Andre Massena and 1anrs.
I want ideas as much as voices of support for how to handle ties. Currently, we could either:
Extend the vote another 48 hours in a sudden-death style election where the only candidates are those who tied in the first election.
Or
Add a rule where a failure to produce a majority invalidates the vote, enabling a new 72 cycle to begin.
It's a question of time and eligibility in my mind but I'd like to know what you guys think.
Also, I'd like permission to tinker with the rules, patching clear loop-holes and other such things. For example, adding the Vassal vote would be nice. Figure now would be as good a time as any given we have to redo it anyway.
In the election category,:
Tabanese was voted for by Tabanese, 1anrs and Andre Massena.
Horse in the Window was voted for by AsdfeZxcas, Vidmizz and Coyotebeast.
Thus, we have a tie between the creator of this trend and a mysterious horse gif. I've never felt like my life has being more meaningful that it is right now.
According to a strict reading of the rules (the letter of the law), as no majority exists (see Section 2, Article 6), this vote cannot be concluded and we are thus in voting limbo. Exacerbating this issue (thank you Sean of the Dead), the votes may meet all criteria of Section 2, Article 3, depending on which philosophical school of meaning one draws from. However, a liberal reading of the rules (the spirit of the law) would acknowledge the spurious nature of the vote for a gif and conclude that I'd being voted in. In order not to bog this all down, I'd decide upon two things.
1) Grant myself a second term. Muhahahaha!
2) Ask the forum what we should do about ties and possibly, even what sensible means. I'll elaborate below.
So, Tabanese has won the election via military coup. Huzzah!
In the slider category,:
Free Trade was voted for by: Cacra.
Free Subjects was voted for by: Vidmizz, Panzer Commander, Andre Massena, CoyoteBeast and 1anrs.
Quality was voted for by: Tabanese.
A lot less ambiguous, the next slider change shall be towards liberation of the Serfs.
The winners of the 'Call-It' award this week are Andre Massena and 1anrs.
I want ideas as much as voices of support for how to handle ties. Currently, we could either:
Extend the vote another 48 hours in a sudden-death style election where the only candidates are those who tied in the first election.
Or
Add a rule where a failure to produce a majority invalidates the vote, enabling a new 72 cycle to begin.
It's a question of time and eligibility in my mind but I'd like to know what you guys think.
Also, I'd like permission to tinker with the rules, patching clear loop-holes and other such things. For example, adding the Vassal vote would be nice. Figure now would be as good a time as any given we have to redo it anyway.
I would suggest the 48h extension, a new voting cycle could bog the game down, and cause some to lose interest. We're basically going back over what we've already been through...
I speak on behalf of my canidate, the horse. He demands a revote!
In all seriousness, I think that if we have a tie, the person who isn't being re-elected should win. If there isn't someone going for re-election in the tie, just choose randomly.
In all seriousness, I think that if we have a tie, the person who isn't being re-elected should win. If there isn't someone going for re-election in the tie, just choose randomly.
You might have taken the power from the horse, but he will be back... Soon
And the horse finds it insulting to be referred as a .gif several times when he was a .jpeg all along
And the horse finds it insulting to be referred as a .gif several times when he was a .jpeg all along
I propose voting on a new rule:
* two tie breakers which would determine new ruler in case of electoral tie (in order of importance):
1) if ruler is going for another term he automatically loses elections;
2) candidate with least years in service wins
- in case of another tie sudden-death (24hrs) election extension would be performed, all electors would be eligible to vote again (and if they don't change their previous vote it would stand)
I also propose that we have regular re-elections (72hrs), together with referendum on constitutional change (addition of new rule).
* two tie breakers which would determine new ruler in case of electoral tie (in order of importance):
1) if ruler is going for another term he automatically loses elections;
2) candidate with least years in service wins
- in case of another tie sudden-death (24hrs) election extension would be performed, all electors would be eligible to vote again (and if they don't change their previous vote it would stand)
I also propose that we have regular re-elections (72hrs), together with referendum on constitutional change (addition of new rule).
I like this model but would amend it to get rid of option two, going directly to the sudden death extension. While somewhat practical now, going back through player history might prove unwieldy at the game goes on. Plus, we have a rule to prevent the same player dominating the game in place, so it doesn't feel right to add another block to them playing. Lastly, if it is still a tie after the 24 hours, shall we tack on another 24 hours ad infinitum until somebody changes their vote or call a new election, so all electors must re-vote?
Now? :/
As in, 'Tabanese tied in an election with a .jpeg (thank you Vidmizz), so we have to revote'.
... Well, I suppose I didn't even put up a manifesto. Alright...let it be.
Hear ye, Hear ye!
Another voting process is called. We shall be voting for a new leader for next term, the previous vote declare illegitimate as a result of a draw. Please vote, in the regular fashion.
The vote on the slider shall stand. Please do not vote, in the regular fashion.
And lastly, we shall be amending the constitution of this thread. This shall be done in the following way.
First, label and explain your addition like this so there is no confusion:
CONSTITUTIONAL VOTE said:
Then people can back your idea by doing this:
(CONSTITUTION: TABANESE)
If you think Steve's big idea is completely fetch, except for that bit about gays being people, then you should copy and paste it as your own idea but change the part you disagree with. That way, if people agree with your amendment, all they need to do is vote for your idea. It seems like stealing but it prevents a bureaucratic nightmare for me.
Anyway, have fun!
why ain't anyone voting?
Election:Tabanese
Unfortunately the horse decided to back off from the elections for he intends to attend the next ones that are soon
Election:Tabanese
Unfortunately the horse decided to back off from the elections for he intends to attend the next ones that are soon
Primarily because I am somewhat confused by what is being discussed in the last few posts. I think the gist of it is that if there is a constitutional change you vote by the name of the person proposing it and that if you disagree, change the wording and adopt your own, that then becomes your idea.
Not really sure why a tie should result in the incumbent automatically losing? Surely if the incumbent gets a good amount of votes, it means the electorate think they are doing well. Anyway, my leader vote:
ELECTION:Tabanese
Last edited:
The "incumbent losing in a tie" came from me. I think it would help everyone who wants to get elected a slightly better chance of getting a turn. Anyway,
Election: Tabanese
Election: Tabanese
Im sorry but i will have to leave this game as right now i have a lot of work to do, but i might join again later.
That's okay. Drop back in whenever.
As for everything else, sorry for the confusion and inactivity. Even now, I'm busy but tonight I'll get round to pushing this game forward and editing the rules to deal with ties. Again, sorry about the inactivity.
And the results are in. Voting is well over. I'm in a rush so I don't quite have time for the razzle-dazzle.
Winning the election is Tabanese, with unanimous support.
The following changes to the game rules are being made. I'm going to introduce a clause to deal with ties and change the criterion of a valid vote to include only votes that are tenable. This will let us overlook votes for joke characters.
I'll do the legislative leg work when I get a chance and have a save uploaded asap. Sorry for the hold up everyone.
Winning the election is Tabanese, with unanimous support.
The following changes to the game rules are being made. I'm going to introduce a clause to deal with ties and change the criterion of a valid vote to include only votes that are tenable. This will let us overlook votes for joke characters.
I'll do the legislative leg work when I get a chance and have a save uploaded asap. Sorry for the hold up everyone.
My fellow electors, I bring to your attention a most opportune moment in history. If you'll observe the following map.
This is the current diplomatic situation for Sicily. Red indicates their enemies, while green signifies their allies in the war. France, Milan and Castile all desire their destruction. We cannot allow this to happen. Iberian or Frankish interest in Italy is unacceptable, while Milan must not obtain more power. We cannot fight alongside Sicily however; we would gain nothing and lose much to their enemies. I therefore propose that we strike against Sicily ourselves and bring their lands under our rule.
We have not claim on the land, so the people may reject the war as profiteering. We additionally must deal with the nobles whom have links in the area. Yet, in these prosperous times, this outrage will be controlled and diluted by luxury. Naples, our ally, will allow us to march our forces through their lands. This will avoid the need for a naval landing. The sum total of their forces equals 8000 men and 14 ships. We outman them by 1000 and have one more ship, so we are evenly matched. However, I believe that we can force a settlement, bringing them under our banner as a vassal state. Our Papal allies, quality army and their commitment to other wars should tip the scales in our favour.
I therefore seek permission to commission a war of aggression against Sicily.
(WAR WITH SICILY: YAY)
The voting process will close on the 15th of April, 20:00 GMT.
This is the current diplomatic situation for Sicily. Red indicates their enemies, while green signifies their allies in the war. France, Milan and Castile all desire their destruction. We cannot allow this to happen. Iberian or Frankish interest in Italy is unacceptable, while Milan must not obtain more power. We cannot fight alongside Sicily however; we would gain nothing and lose much to their enemies. I therefore propose that we strike against Sicily ourselves and bring their lands under our rule.
We have not claim on the land, so the people may reject the war as profiteering. We additionally must deal with the nobles whom have links in the area. Yet, in these prosperous times, this outrage will be controlled and diluted by luxury. Naples, our ally, will allow us to march our forces through their lands. This will avoid the need for a naval landing. The sum total of their forces equals 8000 men and 14 ships. We outman them by 1000 and have one more ship, so we are evenly matched. However, I believe that we can force a settlement, bringing them under our banner as a vassal state. Our Papal allies, quality army and their commitment to other wars should tip the scales in our favour.
I therefore seek permission to commission a war of aggression against Sicily.
(WAR WITH SICILY: YAY)
The voting process will close on the 15th of April, 20:00 GMT.
Last edited: