World Leaders Survivor Redux - Organisation Thread

[big bad fab]

Before you begin...

First, I know it's impossible to choose when you write a foreign name, but, as you seem to have opted for local writings (as in Armenia, your first one), it should be:
France: Nicolas
Bangladesh: Wajed
Israël: Benyamin
Argentina: Cristina.

Second, there is a real typo mistake in:
Uganda: Museveni.

Now, I think you should make 2 replacements:
Morocco: not the PM but the king Muhammed VI (as in Jordan, e.g.), who has more power and has time for him. It's quite clear.
Iran: ayatollah Ali Khamenei, not the president (BTW, it's Ahmadinejad); the supreme guide has chosen Ahmadinejad among presidential candidates in 2005... and will choose the next president. So, I think it's also a clear one.

As for Thailand, it's more debatable. King Bhumibol has huge influence and there's a big instability these days... But, sure, "normal" power lies in the prime ministership. So this replacement shouldn't be done.
In Russia, on the contrary, maybe the PM should replace the president in your list... But I don't think it's needed.

Anyway, fine idea and great thread.

[big bad fab]

- Apart from Iran (it should be Khamenei: he has real and final power and Ahmadinejad may be beaten in the presidential election to be held very soon) and Russia (I would say Putin, after all),

there is the problem of Ukraine, because PM is more powerful since 2004 constitutional changes. So, Yushchenko or Tymoshenko ? But I would let Yushchenko, as PMs change a lot...

- Taiwan is a real country. You can't miss it. 100%.

Kosovo will remain independent, just a matter of time: so, list it. 95%.

Vatican is a state, with diplomatic relations with almost anyone. So, I think it can be listed. 90%.

Palestine has already some territories and will be a state, even in a longer term. So, list it. 70%.

Western Sahara is almost entirely occupied by Morocco. It has faded from the international agenda and its population may well "disappear" in different countries (Mauritania, Algeria, "great" Morocco). It's very likely it will never gain real independence. So, no, don't list it. 35%.

Cyprus will, one day or another, be reunified. So, no to Northern Cyprus. 15%.

South Ossetia, Abkhazia, Transnistria are artifical makings, manipulated from abroad. NO. 0%, 2% and 0%.

And I would say no to Somaliland (40%) and Puntland (10%), even if the first one may well become really independent (internationally recognized) sooner than we think.

[big bad fab]

In my opinion there should be a general rule as to which leader to include. The rule should either be head of government or whichever position has the most formal power. It gets illogical to pick whoever we suspect has the most real power in the country. At times this may reasonably be a non-elected person (such as Thaksin in Thailand, for instance).

You simply can't have a general rule.
Presidents and PM aren't the same in every country: see USA, France, Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Germany, Ireland, 10 countries, 10 systems
(and sometimes, they don't even exist !).

[big bad fab]

In my opinion there should be a general rule as to which leader to include. The rule should either be head of government or whichever position has the most formal power. It gets illogical to pick whoever we suspect has the most real power in the country. At times this may reasonably be a non-elected person (such as Thaksin in Thailand, for instance).

You simply can't have a general rule.
Presidents and PM aren't the same in every country: see USA, France, Poland, Finland, Ukraine, Russia, Czech Republic, Romania, Germany, Ireland, 10 countries, 10 systems
(and sometimes, they don't even exist !).

Sure you can. I just offered an example of a general rule in my post.

The point of my answer was to show you that you CANNOT say everywhere and for sure who has the "most formal power", as you wrote. Constitutional law is a rather complex and subtle matter.

[big bad fab]

In Round 10, Hugo Chavez, Daniel Ortega, Evo Morales, Sultan Qaboos and Viktor Yushenko will be immune.

Fine for Yushenko. Why not for Qaboos and Morales. Very disappoinbting as for Ortega.
OMG, Chavez.... Next time....

[big bad fab]

I have broken a tie between Uribe and dos Santos, again favouring Uribe in a tiebreak, but with good reasons.

What reasons?

As the organizer-in-chief, Hughento's reasons are always good reasons.
And they may be kept secret until the end !

[big bad fab]

Dear Organizer-in-Chief,

Unless I didn't pay attention enough, you haven't answered a terrible question: what do you intend to do with Panama ?

Martinelli is so a newbie in his functions, it seems difficult to vote on him. But we can vote on his personal past.

I don't know, I would say: let's vote on Martin Torrijos.

We've voted on Kamal Dehal (Nepal), even if he has resigned, but, when we voted, he wasn't replaced yet. So, we can't compare the two.

[big bad fab]

We can't bring in new people in the middle of the game. This isn't Big Brother.

I'm also in favour of no change.

But a democratic election with an undisputable result seems to be a better reason than re-launching dwindling trash TV....

So, I just wanted to ask the question and think a bit, even if nothing is changed (which I repeat I prefer).

[big bad fab]

So, Hughento, what do you do with Panama, Lithuania and Mongolia ?

Difficult to vote on new Panam and Mongolia presidents, as they don't have politiical experience enough for us to assess.

But Lithuania is less easy: this Baltic "Iron Lady" has a lot of experience.
On the other hand, it's tempting to vote for or against Adamkus (BTW, it's Adamkus, not Adumkus I think).

So, no change at all, I presume, Doctor Platypus ?

[big bad fab]

Dear Hughento,

Do you think it would be fine to ask the "usual respondants" their predictions on the winner,
or would it tell too much about everyone's aim,
or would it be useless because of The One, Obama ?

I was about to open a topic on this, but I think you're the only one entitled to do it IF AND ONLY IF you find it interesting.

Maybe can it be opened just at the end of this first period and just for 24 hours, in order not to reveal too much for the following rounds.

Up to you.

[big bad fab]

1) After having thought about it (yes, I'm still able to, at least a bit !):
No change of leaders now, even if in 3 countries, leaders have changed. It's too late to decide this.

2) No immunity at all, it produces too many imbalances from one round to another.

3) 4)
- Being able to split your vote (0,5-0,5) hasn't been a success, so let's drop this idea OR ELSE it should become compulsory for everyone to split his vote, in order to avoid almost everybody to vote with an entire vote.

- In case of a par between 2 leaders, why not decide it with a small vote just opened to those who voted for another leader ? That's just an idea, I'm not convinced myself.

- Maybe a round where you eject 2 leaders, voters having each 2 votes and you use a preferential system to decide. A bit complicated to organize maybe, but still democratic and very interesting I think.

- Maybe a round where each voter can decide if he wants to vote in each group or if he wants not to vote in one group, just to have 2 votes in the other. I think that would be a big idea, since it remains democratic but still entails some suspense...

[big bad fab]

Anyone who's no longer in office should be swapped, but just then.

I disagree, as IF they have been swapped during the first phase, we may have voted in order to oust the new leader sooner.

Just imagine Dave Cameron replacing Gordon Brown before the end of this Survivor:
you would be a bit angry to have him just in the end, because you don't drop Brown before...
And I would agree that Cameron wouldn't deserve to be in.
Or Obama assassinated and Biden replacing him. Even me, I'd prefer to have Obama on the list.
That would be a posthumous victory.
Or Mali's president dislodged by a military coup: I'd prefer to let the democrat in.

I was the first to ask this question of replacements, but I've reached the conclusion it's not fair to replace.
Maybe you'd voted for the new Panama's president whereas you didn't vote for Torrijos, for example.

[big bad fab]

- Maybe a round where each voter can decide if he wants to vote in each group or if he wants not to vote in one group, just to have 2 votes in the other. I think that would be a big idea, since it remains democratic but still entails some suspense...

May I add that this idea is especially big (I think) because there are only 2 groups left.
It's a really democratic uncertainty.
And we need to be both fair and suspenseful !

[big bad fab]

Group B is really difficult now: no real bad leader left, whereas group A has still many bad leaders (even if they are not absolutely horrible).

[big bad fab]

Standard broke a tie in Group A message.

Regional solidarity ?
Oups. No.
Another big mystery, but...

[big bad fab]

The fortieth round has completed, with two eliminated leaders:

Group A

Rafael Correa, Ecuador: 13 votes
------------------
Nikola Gruevski, Macedonia: 2 votes
Lee Myung-Bak, Korea, South: 1 vote
Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Denmark: 1 vote
Jose Socrates, Portugal: 1 vote
Baldwin Spencer, Antigua and Barbuda: 1 vote

Group B

Brian Cowen, Ireland: 8 votes
-------------------------
Dmitris Cristofias, Cyprus: 3 votes
Valdas Adamkus, Lithuania: 1 vote
Angela Merkel, Germany: 1 vote
Mohamed Nasheed, Maldives: 1 vote
Donald Tusk, Poland: 1 vote

There is a mistake in your count: Socrates had 2 votes.

[big bad fab]

You really intended to make it last 4 hours ?!?

I say it frankly: it would have been stupid.
Some of us aren't always stuck to our PC !
Despite the fact I'm posting few minutes after you...

Anyway, nice to see you here again !

[big bad fab]

I didn't believe it could happen so quickly.
Things are more open now, at least for the second place.
Can Manmohan Singh become a McCain by eliminating every big contender, one by one ? And Obama might be a Hillary, the favorite who loses.

[big bad fab]

I broke a tie, favouring Malta. There are more Maltese people living in Australia than in Malta, fwiw.

That's fair as Baldwin Spencer was saved by your tie-breaking role, some rounds ago, against Balkenende.

[big bad fab]

Yes i also found them quite interesting. Had i known you had wanted me to reply i would have.

What is more, your bios might have tilted the vote a bit against Barrow !

[big bad fab]

This was the last time I PMed.
In fact, had Zapatero been in group B, I would have tried to eliminate him before Bachelet.

But, now, with 18 remaining leaders, it will be very hard to choose.

[big bad fab]

It's a pity.
But I would have been sad in either case. Merkel and Rudd are among my top 5. And it would have been fine to have an Australian win Hughento's Survivor.

We can congratulate Hughento for not showing any parochialism !

[big bad fab]

We're near the top 5 (and rules will change a bit in 2 rounds, if I've understood well).

And there's one big surprise with Nasheed... interesting !

[big bad fab]

Oh no, don't tell me Sigursdardottir would have been eliminated and Oscar Arias, a real leader, would have been saved....
Bouhouhou....

[big bad fab]

Oh no, don't tell me Sigursdardottir would have been eliminated and Oscar Arias, a real leader, would have been saved....
Bouhouhou....

Look at the numbers again.

That's what I say, in the first "new" round, without Gustaf's vote, Johanna would have gathered 2 votes and Reinfeldt 6.
And between Singh, Arias and Sigursdardottir, maybe Arias would have been saved along with Singh

EDIT: but you're right in a sense: hadn't BRTD screwed it up too, Sigursdardottir would have stayed at 3.
So, same conclusion.
This change of rule is a bit disturbing... A pity as the leaders are all on the brink now...