Politician Archive
Thread: How about current Mayor automatically put on city ballot?
Page 2 of 2
Agauro
Fri Nov 19, 2004 1:30 am
#14
Oh man. Ok then how about asking "how is a Mayor to stay elected that has a death in the family and is dealing with that while voting period is going on and someone registers that none of the other citizens want. With the current Mayor being gone and not able to register what happens? The citizens still want their current Mayor but can not vote for him since he is dealing with real life issue and is not registered on the ballot."
Heck even the old way with ghost votes always had the incumbent on the ballot no matter what. Of course the problem was the ghost votes going to an incumbent mayor that wanted out or needed to be out of Office. What would it hurt to automatically put the current Mayor on the ballot now since it is only active votes that count. A Mayor that was missing or inactive could still be voted out by another registered player and this change would not hurt active Mayors thathave to deal with a real life situation or emergency.
Agauro
Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:11 am
#15
Oh I agree that it is not a Super High Priority like the Sales Tax problem is. Just that it should be on the list of things to be looked into. I only started this cause our city Mayor was hit by this situation where could not log in due to a Computer Crash and it made me think about the ramifications of such situations on Active Mayors that the citizens liked.
Inahpets
Tue Nov 23, 2004 10:47 am
#16
You can't only factor in priority. Some things are easy fixes and some are hard, should the two hour fix really have to wait until the three month fix is complete? They may not even use the same dev manpower. Also, priority is a matter of opinion. We've had the same mayor since day one, and she happens to be a reservist. To our 100ish citizens, it would really stink if she was ousted because she got called to active duty. While I am sure that to most people this is no big deal, to the people who are impacted by it, it's a big deal.
Scoooter
Tue Nov 23, 2004 11:13 am
#17
Inahpets wrote:
You can't only factor in priority. Some things are easy fixes and some are hard, should the two hour fix really have to wait until the three month fix is complete? They may not even use the same dev manpower. Also, priority is a matter of opinion. We've had the same mayor since day one, and she happens to be a reservist. To our 100ish citizens, it would really stink if she was ousted because she got called to active duty. While I am sure that to most people this is no big deal, to the people who are impacted by it, it's a big deal.
Well since you don't have their code you do not know how easy a fix it is. May times a fix has a minimum time frame which is costly due to internal procedures.
I have been a developer a long time and we should all stop stating what is and is not a quick fix. Many state this like facts and none of us truly know.
Inahpets
Wed Nov 24, 2004 9:50 am
#18
That's my basic point. I hate when people jump all over someone for suggesting a fix because it isn't, well, the combat upgrade. We can all make all the suggestions we want and let the devs decide (partly from the clamor of ideas) what's best to fix when, because they are the ones with all the information.
Ewach
Sun Nov 28, 2004 11:25 am
#19
I could possibly except the "Mayors have to re-register every three weeks to be on the ballot" if only someone were able to point out any plausible problem it's meant to fix.
Since there is no default voting any more, the incumbent mayor would no longer automatically receive votes from inactive, lazy or ghost citizens.
Let's look at worst case example - an inactive mayor and all citizens are inactive.
Without Opposition
Case 1: Mayor is not registered. No opposition.
Result: No votes cast. The incumbent remains Mayor.
Case 2: Mayor is automatically registered. No opposition.
Result: No votes cast. The incumbent remains Mayor.
With Opposition
Case 1: Mayor is not registred. Opposition candidate registers.
Result: If opposition receives even one vote, the new candidate becomes Mayor.
Case 2: Mayor is automatically registered. Opposition candidate registers.
Resuilt: If opposition receives even one vote, and incumbent receives none, the new candidate becomes Mayor.
Conclusion
Can anyone point out a single situation in which some problem or situation is "prevented" by not automatically reregistering the incumbent?
If so, I'm ready to hear it.
Ewach
Wed Dec 08, 2004 11:34 am
#20
Ewach wrote:
Can anyone point out a single situation in which some problem or situation is "prevented" by not automatically reregistering the incumbent?
Should I take the absolute silence in response to my question to mean:
- No one can provide a single situation
OR
- The apathy is so high that no one cares?
Virrago
Thu Dec 09, 2004 1:38 am
#21
Pappi wrote:
I actually asked this a few days ago, and didn't get an ok to quote until yesterday. I agree that mayors should be automatically on the ballot, and if the mayor's inactive the citizens shouldn't vote for him. however, the current response is "no"
There is your answer.
Page 2 of 2