Elections and Deputies

wizardofoz01

wizardofoz01

TNPer
I've noticed in this election that there is a small trend of candidates saying that they will appoint so-and-so to be their Deputy if they themselves get elected.

I'm not trying to single anyone out, and I'm sure that those who have done so this election cycle are merely trying to gather the 2nd member of their team as soon as possible and to present this information to this region. For that, I do applaud them.

However, does anyone else besides me find it somewhat disturbing that these "deputy promises" can almost be interpreted as promised favors before an election? The potential of abuse here seems to me to be quite high. For example, what if person X promises the deputyship to Y but after X is elected, he chooses Z? Then things would get ugly. A related note is whether or not a deputy promise before an election is even LEGALLY binding. I mean, I would say it's morally binding, since a promise has been given, but.. assuming that one cannot appoint one's deputy until one has been elected, then any pre-indications could be interpreted as just an expression of opinion. After all, at the time of the promise, the candidate doesn't have the authority to follow through on that promise.

In extreme circumstances, it could almost be seen as vote-buying. If you promise to appoint someone as a deputy, they will most likely vote for you. They may even vote for you despite the fact that they disagree/dislike you.

At any rate, I'm just throwing this out there. I don't think there's been that kind of abuse on this thing so far, but I think the potential for an unscrupulous person to use it is great.
 
Well, you've got to remember that accepting a deputy position isn't like drafting the military - you get a choice in the matter. If you really don't like one of the candidates, you're probably not going to run with them.

I personally think it's a decent campaign tool. If someone is dishonest enough to say they'll appoint Y but then appoint Z later, one would hope that they're not going to be able to get into office in the first place. And even if it does happen, the resulting civil suits and possible impeachment charges wouldn't bode well for the new electee.

I don't think any sort of legislation on this is completely needed. If someone really wants too jepoardize their standing in the region by doing such a thing, I say let them do it and reap the consequences.
 
I was asked by IG to become her Deputy if she was elected, but I'll back out if that makes anyone feel better. Also, if you check my votes for Minister for A&E I voted for Puckton.
 
No VB, hardly that. I was merely throwing the idea out for discussion. I have no problem with anyone whohas done that in this election cycle.

Hers -- You're probably right. I'm guessing that situation COULD be grounds for a civil suit.
 
I'm not bothered by the idea of a candidate promising to appoint a specific player as their deputy. I would be bothered only if it were a form of briebery or vote buying or part of a unpublicized agreement that the voters are not told about beforehand.

I'd rather that it not be the subject of legislation (whether it is to regulate the practice or even to require it). I think the voters should be able to reject a candidate who choose to make such an arrangement in favor of a candidate who chooses not to. The benefit of selecting deputies for Ministers after the elections is that often candidates who are not elected would make the best qualified deputy for that or some other ministry; I would not like to see that option foreclosed.
 
Well I'm just asking for deputy volunteers as no one is running against me, and I don't want a problem like last time when I almost didn't have one
 
The constitution only specifies one... but I know in the past we've had "Secondary Deputy Ministers", although that could have been more of a joke than actually serious.
 
I think it makes sense to run as a tagteam partnership during the elections as then people can decide whether or not they agree with the team.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I'm not bothered by the idea of a candidate promising to appoint a specific player as their deputy. I would be bothered only if it were a form of briebery or vote buying or part of a unpublicized agreement that the voters are not told about beforehand.
Click to expand...
The point I was trying to make (and I won't push it further since it seems most people are ok with this) is that by allowing candidates to promise jobs to prospective deputies before the fact, you increase the chance that this promise IS part of a larger bribery or vote-buying scheme.

Secondly, the other problem may be political. One candidate engages in promising a future deputyship, and let's assume that prospective deputy is wildly popular and can bring votes to that candidate. The other candidate running may feel pressured to do the same thing in order to have a legitimate chance of winning. And what if that person can't find anyone? Then essentially you have 2 people running against 1 person.



Re what Ator said: In cases where people are running uncontested, then of course I don't think there's a problem with it.
 
Surely any show of allegiance by a candidate to another person by making them their deputy, even after the election is over with no contact beforehand, can buy favours from that person in the future theoretically? :huh: I understand the likely of pre-voting promises increasing the likelihood shortly before the voting process, but it still has the possibility to influence their decision. If there was to be a totally fair way of deputising at all it would be to allow people to vote for the individual positions deputy, or at least let the people elected in the first round vote to decide who becomes deputy.

EDIT: Reading that back even I can't understand what I'm talking about. The first person who can give me a slightly accurate summation of what I may have meant win's the first Virtual Boy Medal of Comprehension Skill!
 
Hersfold:
The constitution only specifies one... but I know in the past we've had "Secondary Deputy Ministers", although that could have been more of a joke than actually serious.
Click to expand...
The constitution only requires one Deputy for the Ministers who head specific Ministries. If a Minister needs to make additional appointments, they have that authority under the "necessary and proper powers" clause; however, the other deputies are not created by the constitution and would not be in the line of succession if both a Minister and Deputy of a particular ministry were vacant at the same time.

Of course, if the Deputy Minister becomes Minister, he can then appoint his own Deputy Minister (even one of the deputies not required by the Constitution), which is a different situation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top