Kerim Aydin wrote: > On Fri, 26 Jun 2009, Benjamin Caplan wrote: > >>> On an unrelated note, I would like to see this incorporated into more >>> offices. I think campaign speeches are a good idea and a much better >>> way to decide than "this guy messed up fewer times in the past." >> >> A good general policy, certainly. But I'm not sure it needs to be quite >> this explicit in the rules. A candidate already SHALL obey pledges to >> which e is party; a simple "SHOULD publish a campaign speech in the form >> of a pledge governing eir administration of the office's powers" should >> suffice. > > This needs legislation in special cases like this one, where there are game- > relevant values tracked by the officer which e can't normally change (except > by proposal or by some difficult method like w/o objection). So in exchange > for making the pledge, e is granted the special ability to change the value. > It would work for setting scorekeepor's score limits for example; you vote > for the candidate promising the score limit you like, and it gets implemented.
That sounds very easy to misimplement in an exploitable-loophole-containing fashion. I'd actually much rather just grant the officer discretionary power outright, and let the voters demand appropriate pledges. At least that way we won't get complacent. On a partially-related note, all elections should include a VACANT option. Or perhaps only if someone 'nominates' it? Vacant-option with 3 support? EMPTY THRONE
