conworlds.fun Forum Index conworlds.fun
A Community of Worldbuilders
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

Election Results

 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    conworlds.fun Forum Index -> World & Culture
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Helloitsme
Newcomer


Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 12:11 am    Post subject: Election Results Reply with quote

Hi Everyone, I have wanted to do realistic elections in the nations that are on my conworld, but I can´t find a way to generate results, specific and detailed municipal results, without having to roll dices for two months. Do you have election generators or something that can make easier this process?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:00 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I don’t. But if you ever find anything like that, let us know!

What do you mean, “realistic”?

Have you thought about just using the RAND function of Excel?
Or the equivalent function in some other spreadsheet app?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Foolster41
Conjurer
Conjurer


Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 266
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I did something like this, where I just guestimated based on how popular various issues were popular, to get a % of the popularity of each party, and then filled senate seats based on this. (so no randomizers).
_________________
"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." - C. S. Lewis
The Bikaesh Foundaiton
Lawful Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Helloitsme
Newcomer


Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Could you give me tips?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Helloitsme
Newcomer


Joined: 17 Aug 2018
Posts: 3

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

By realistic I mean by age, education, income, etc...[/quote]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Foolster41
Conjurer
Conjurer


Joined: 15 Sep 2009
Posts: 266
Location: Pacific Northwest, USA

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:14 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'm not sure how much help I can be, it's basically as I said, very broad guestimating, like my process, was "I think only about 1% would be for bringing back a king, and maybe 43% for prisoners getting the right to vote after they get released? That sounds right"

For getting statistics for age, I used a country's stats that was what I thought was similar (I think Iraq? It was a middle eastern country, I forget which) and just used that. There are age demographic statistics out there.

Honestly, I don't think you need to be super exact.
_________________
"You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body." - C. S. Lewis
The Bikaesh Foundaiton
Lawful Neutral
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Fri Aug 17, 2018 3:34 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I think you need to decide what and/or whom was/were on which ballots.

Also, on each question or seat, how many voters could have voted but didn’t?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Mon Nov 05, 2018 8:02 pm    Post subject: Worldwide Elections for Future or Alternate Earths Reply with quote

I’ve been thinking about general elections in representative democratic republics like RL USA and RL UK GB & NI, except with a worldwide, global government.

———

One thing to consider is when Election Day should be.
I think* it should be five days long —— a Thursday thru a Monday.
*(Or at least I’ve been toying with the idea.)
I think it should be the Saturday closest to the full moon closest to the summer solstice, together with the preceding Thursday and Friday, and the following Sunday and Monday.
I picked those days of the week because of the religiously-prescribed weekly days-of-rest in RL religions that have them; Thursday for Zoroastrians and Nordic Paganism, Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews and Samaritans etc., Sunday for most Christians, and Monday for “service churches”.
I picked the full moon for the same reason Easter is near the full moon; it helps people (voters or pilgrims) travel in low-tech. For the same reason I picked the Summer Solstice. It all lets people travel with the lowest tech.

One issue would be that the voting days in the Southern Hemisphere will be at least about half a year out-of-phase with the Northern Hemisphere’s.
It would be interesting to work out the consequences.

Also; how would this play out differently at different latitudes? In the Tropics as opposed to the Temperate Zones? In the Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) as opposed to the Temperate Zones? And are there places where the difficulty of travelling in the monsoons, or in oppressive heat, would have a greater impact than that of travelling in the dark?

———

Another thing I’ve been considering is term limits.
In the US, where at-most-two-terms is a very popular limit, this has been the cause of two recognised problems.
First, it makes the officials’ entire second term be a lame-duck term.
Second, it puts the officials’ political party, rather than the officials themselves, in control.
So, I would want the strictest term limits to still allow at least three consecutive terms.
Some states limit (or used to limit) how many consecutive terms a person could be governor, but not how many total terms.
One term-limit I’ve been considering is the following:
At most three out of any four consecutive terms; at most five out of any seven consecutive terms; at most six out of any nine consecutive terms; and at most seven terms in a lifetime.

It used to be traditional in the USA that state legislators had shorter terms than executives, but had no limits on numbers of terms, or had more permissive term limits.

———

I’ve also been considering how long terms should be.
The UK once experimented with three-year terms for Members of Parliament. That turned out to be way too short. So I would recommend that terms for legislators be at least four years long.
Political scientists in the USA say that the four-year term for PotUS is too short, so I recommend that terms for chief executive officers be at least five years long.
The UK decided that Parliamentary elections should be held at least once every seven years. I would recommend that terms for legislators be no longer than seven years.
Probably the same should apply for CEOs; if not, recall that Roman Emperors were voted “above the law” for a term of ten years, after which the Senate had to re-affirm that decision. So if the Chief Magistrate’s term were longer than seven years, I think it should not be longer than ten years.
Judicial terms, at least in the USA, are traditionally longer than legislative and executive terms. They are often lifetime appointments. In the USA it is becoming unpopular for SCotUS Justices to have the lifetime appointments the Constitution gives them.
It might be better to limit the length of a judge’s term of office to some multiple —— say, twice —— as long as the longest legislative term or executive term. Or something like fifteen years.

———

I’m open to suggestions.

———

In a polity in which travelling from their constituency to their place of office, would require a representative to travel thru interplanetary space — or, worse, interstellar space — , it might make sense for such representatives to have much longer terms, and fewer of them.

OTOH, by the time that becomes an issue, it might make better sense to have off-planet representatives meet virtually rather than in-the-flesh.

———

What does everyone think?
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
elemtilas
Conjurer
Conjurer


Joined: 04 Nov 2014
Posts: 158
Location: Never anywhere but here!

PostPosted: Tue Nov 06, 2018 8:11 am    Post subject: Re: Worldwide Elections for Future or Alternate Earths Reply with quote

chiarizio wrote:
I’ve been thinking about general elections in representative democratic republics like RL USA and RL UK GB & NI, except with a worldwide, global government.

———

One thing to consider is when Election Day should be.
I think* it should be five days long —— a Thursday thru a Monday.
*(Or at least I’ve been toying with the idea.)
I think it should be the Saturday closest to the full moon closest to the summer solstice, together with the preceding Thursday and Friday, and the following Sunday and Monday.
I picked those days of the week because of the religiously-prescribed weekly days-of-rest in RL religions that have them; Thursday for Zoroastrians and Nordic Paganism, Friday for Muslims, Saturday for Jews and Samaritans etc., Sunday for most Christians, and Monday for “service churches”.
I picked the full moon for the same reason Easter is near the full moon; it helps people (voters or pilgrims) travel in low-tech. For the same reason I picked the Summer Solstice. It all lets people travel with the lowest tech.

One issue would be that the voting days in the Southern Hemisphere will be at least about half a year out-of-phase with the Northern Hemisphere’s.
It would be interesting to work out the consequences.

Also; how would this play out differently at different latitudes? In the Tropics as opposed to the Temperate Zones? In the Polar regions (Arctic and Antarctic) as opposed to the Temperate Zones? And are there places where the difficulty of travelling in the monsoons, or in oppressive heat, would have a greater impact than that of travelling in the dark?


Very interesting line of reasoning! And makes sense for a kind of low-tech world-spanning government.

When you mentioned what is basically a "United Earth" kind of arrangement, my first thought was "why even have an election day"? Of course, there are remote districts where people may have to, if they're even interested in voting, travel some way to get to a town. I'm thinking Siberia, the Alaskan & Canadian wildernesses, the Outback.

But most people, even very poor people, have access to technology. Cell phones, internet kiosks & cafes. It would seem to make sense for online voting to be a thing. Just enter your World Citizen ID Code into the input box and you'll be taken straight away to the ballot screens...

Quote:
Another thing I’ve been considering is term limits.


This is extremely sensible.

Me, I'd like to limit politicians to zero terms, please.


Quote:
In the US, where at-most-two-terms is a very popular limit, this has been the cause of two recognised problems.
First, it makes the officials’ entire second term be a lame-duck term.
Second, it puts the officials’ political party, rather than the officials themselves, in control.


Those are problems indeed!

Quote:
So, I would want the strictest term limits to still allow at least three consecutive terms.


Fair. But then, to balance the problems you cite with the problems of a dud in office, would you consider limiting the length of the terms?

So, in stead of a lame-duck system of 2 four year terms (8 total); and in stead of a potentially disastrous regime of 3 four year terms (12 total); would you consider 3 three year terms (9 years total) as a compromise?

Quote:
Some states limit (or used to limit) how many consecutive terms a person could be governor, but not how many total terms.
One term-limit I’ve been considering is the following:
At most three out of any four consecutive terms; at most five out of any seven consecutive terms; at most six out of any nine consecutive terms; and at most seven terms in a lifetime.

It used to be traditional in the USA that state legislators had shorter terms than executives, but had no limits on numbers of terms, or had more permissive term limits.

———


Right.

I always thought it would be better for the system to be modelled on the old cursus honorum.

You could be a career politician, but you couldn't do it all in one place. If you wanted to do this, you'd have to start at the municipal or county level for perhaps 6 to 8 years. Then you could serve a maximum of 3 terms in the Statehouse (2 in the lower house, 1 in the upper); then try for governor or Congress. Again, 3 terms in Congress (2 in the House, 1 in the Senate); then try for President. After one six year term as president, and if you're a lawyer or judge by trade, you could sit on a Federal bench for a term before consideration for the High Court.

Alternatively, one could try for a thoroughly legal cursus: a local tribunal > circuit court judge > State Court > Federal Court > High Court.


Quote:
I’ve also been considering how long terms should be.
The UK once experimented with three-year terms for Members of Parliament. That turned out to be way too short. So I would recommend that terms for legislators be at least four years long.
Political scientists in the USA say that the four-year term for PotUS is too short, so I recommend that terms for chief executive officers be at least five years long.


I have the feeling that the political scientists who are decrying the overly short (or underly long?) terms do so loudest when "their guys" are out of power!

I'm all for short short terms and relatively tight limits.

But I do think four years is short for president. And eight can be a tad long. I'd argue for six, actually. Happy medium, perhaps. Long enough for a competent executive to get some important things done; not quite long enough for an incompetent to ruin quite everything!


Quote:
The UK decided that Parliamentary elections should be held at least once every seven years. I would recommend that terms for legislators be no longer than seven years.


That's fine. Though I'd then argue for a single term only. Two terms at the State level plus two at the Federal level is 28 years (on in each house at each level). In my opinion, that's about 45 years too long for any politician to be in office; but in all seriousness, I think 28 years is plenty long enough for any career politician to be in power.

Quote:
Probably the same should apply for CEOs; if not, recall that Roman Emperors were voted “above the law” for a term of ten years, after which the Senate had to re-affirm that decision. So if the Chief Magistrate’s term were longer than seven years, I think it should not be longer than ten years.


We flirted with overly long terms. (FDR?) I jest become more and more uncomfortable the longer any elected politician remains in office.

Mind you, this doesn't apply to consecrated monarchs --- that's a different matter!


Quote:
Judicial terms, at least in the USA, are traditionally longer than legislative and executive terms. They are often lifetime appointments. In the USA it is becoming unpopular for SCotUS Justices to have the lifetime appointments the Constitution gives them.


Again, I think this might stem from the ill will of those "on the opposite side". Clearly we saw the debacle surrounding the anti-Cavanaugh campaign. Those folks will be hollering for the next 40-50-60-70 years! (He's quite young -- he could be there quite a long while. If the protesters don't decide to take their rhetoric seriously...)

I think term limits for lower level judgeships might be a good idea. But I'd still really rather keep the SC a more stabilising force. If only they could stop legislating from the bench!

Quote:
It might be better to limit the length of a judge’s term of office to some multiple —— say, twice —— as long as the longest legislative term or executive term. Or something like fifteen years.


Fair.

Quote:
I’m open to suggestions.



Being something of a monarchist, I'd have liked to have seen something like the N.A.L. (Ill Bethisad) form in North America in the 18th century. I think a monarch with limited, constitutional, moral and apolitical powers is a Good Thing. Someone that is not beholden to any one for authority but God and the Mandate of Heaven; not owing favours to any party or special interest; someone who is thoroughly trained to national duty and is thoroughly grounded in the needs of the People; someone who is above politics and all the day-to-day scheming. Someone who, when the politicians screw things up too badly can step in and "press the pause button". Someone who can consider laws not as matters of political platforms, but as articles that must a) serve the People and their best interest and b) service the Constitution.

Quote:
In a polity in which travelling from their constituency to their place of office, would require a representative to travel thru interplanetary space — or, worse, interstellar space — , it might make sense for such representatives to have much longer terms, and fewer of them.



Or they could vote to nullify certain Laws of Physics, allowing for nearly instantaneous interstellar travel, like they have in Star Wars!

Quote:
OTOH, by the time that becomes an issue, it might make better sense to have off-planet representatives meet virtually rather than in-the-flesh.

———

What does everyone think?


Agreed. Otherwise, you're just going to end up with local parliaments agitating for independence...

Good questions & considerations here!
_________________
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Tue Nov 13, 2018 1:15 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks, elemtilas!
If I weren’t having trouble with the tech, I’d reply to your post piece-by-piece.
Instead I’m going to reply stream-of-consciousness style. If it turns out to be coherent, I’m afraid that’s just luck! 😐

My own idea for SCOTUS Justices’ terms was staggered nine-year terms; one justice per year sometime after Jan 20 but before Oct 1. (Jun 1 maybe?).
That way, every President could appoint four Justices per term. Say a Federalist President inherited a SCotUS of 8 Progressives and 1 Federalist; by the end of her/his first term s/he could have a Court that was 5 to 4 Federalist.
Or, if s/he inherited an all-Progressive Court, if s/he had two consecutive terms, s/he could make it 8 to 1 Federalist by the end of her/his second term.

Similarly a Senator could vote to confirm — or to not confirm — 6 Justices each Senatorial term.

=……………

The 18-year term, if they were likewise staggered — say one justice in February of each odd-numbered year, or something —— wouldn’t let a President appoint more than 2 Justices per four-year term unless one of them retired, or died in office, or something —— a much more likely possibility with 18-year terms than with 9-year terms, in my opinion. A President could reverse a 3-6 minority into a 5-4 majority in one term, but would need at least two (probably consecutive) 4-year terms to turn a 1-8 minority into a 5-4 majority. To turn a 0-9 minority into a 9-0 majority a party would have to hold on to the White House and a filibuster-proof Senate majority for more than 16 years (e.g. 18 years). That’d be 4.5 Presidential terms and 3/Senatorial terms. Which seems unlikely.

—————

One thing I’ve thought about is 10-year terms with a restriction that no-one can serve more than 10 years out of any consecutive 10.5 years.

One way this could work is if the globe were ruled by a 20-member representative body with staggered 10-year terms.
The globe could be divided into 20 districts —— 10 north of the equator and 10 south of it. *(I will propose a possible division below*).
Every year one of the districts in each hemisphere would elect a representative around that hemisphere’s summer solstice.
A representative could not succeed themself directly. If s/he wanted to be re-elected six months later s/he would have to move to the other side of the Equator; or, at least, switch constituency to the other hemisphere (if reps don’t have to live in their districts).

*The districting map might be equi-areal instead of equal-population, though I prefer equal-population. If it were equal-area it might approximate an icosahedron with vertices at the poles. Each pole could be a common vertex of five triangles, 72 degrees of longitude wide, whose common base was around 27.3 degrees of latitude away from the Equator. Each of those triangles would be mostly temperate but partly polar. There could then be ten “rectangles” —— five on each side of the Equator —— 72 degrees of longitude wide, running north or south from the Equator to about 27.3 degrees of latitude. Those “rectangles” would each be mostly tropical but partly temperate.

———

I’ve also thought of dividing the globe into 12 districts; for instance, approximating a dodecahedron with a face centered on each pole.

———

Another idea is a modification of one I saw on the conworlding and conculturing yahoo egroup.

Suppose the polity (whether large or small) were governed by a 7-member council-or-whatever.
Every term, let every voter vote for three candidates. The seven candidates with the most votes wins.

I have a friend who has been a Green candidate for various offices more than once. He doesn’t like the “top two primaries” several states have, because they’d never give a third-party a chance.

I think the vote-for-three elect-seven-best idea would pretty much guarantee at least one third-party member got elected. It would also nearly guarantee the second-party elected more than one member. If a party system even sprang up in such a situation!

———

I’ve thought of another way to elect PotUS as well. It takes four rounds, so it might be too expensive — or might not.
In February let anyone run, and let voters each vote for their four favorite candidates.
The eight candidates with the most votes go on to the second round.
In May let those eight candidates run, and let each voter vote for their two favorites from amongst those eight.
The four candidates with the most votes will go on to the third round.
In August let those four candidates run, and let each voter vote for their one favorite from among those four.
The two candidates with the most votes go on to the fourth/final round.
In November let those two candidates run, and let voters pick their favorite one.
The candidate with the most votes becomes President-Elect.

. . . . .

Maybe the rounds should be in May, July, September, and November —— two months apart — instead of Feb, May, Aug, and Nov.

OTOH why does the final round have to be in November?

———

I don’t know how much I would actually recommend any of these ideas for the real-life USA.

But I do think the popular vote should “trump” the Electoral College unless it’s close. (What “close” means is open to discussion in my opinion).
And I think term-limits should allow for three consecutive terms for legislators and executives at both state and federal levels.
And I think legislators and executives should have at least 4-year terms. (How long?)
And I think Presidents’ terms should be longer than four years. (How long?)
And I think Supremes should have terms, not lifetime appointments. (Details?)

———

I have been wondering about how many members a body should have to kinda guarantee it won’t be deadlocked by a tie.

If it’s an odd number not divisible by three, it can’t be split into a 2-way nor a 3-way tie.

Suppose they elect a Speaker or President or Chairman from among themselves; and s/he votes only in case the other members are tied.
If the number of those other members is divisible by neither 3 nor 4, they can’t be split into a 3-way nor 4-way tie.

So we should be looking at numbers congruent to 11 module 12.
11, 23, 35, 47, 59, 71, 83, 95, 107, 119, 131, 143, 155, ... etc.
Note how many of those numbers are prime!
Also, as it happens, for all of them:
a simple majority
a three-fifths supermajority
a two-thirds supermajority
a three-fourths supermajority
unanimity
are five distinct numbers.

———

I also think the means to amend the U.S. Constitution should be easier; it should take some clues from some state constitutions. More on that later, if someone asks for it.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 5:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

As far as PotUS’s election is concerned, what about letting the popular vote trump the electoral college, as long as it was at least 51%? Or over 50.5%? Or over 50.25%?

Or maybe the popular vote would override the electoral college as long as the pop vote leader had at least 49%, or 49.5%, or 49.75%, and led the second-place pop vote getter by at least 1%, or at least 0.5%, or at least 0.25%.

So in the last scenario, if the popular vote front runner gets 49.76% of the popular vote, but the second-place vote getter gets 49.52% of the popular vote, it goes to the electoral college.

Or even if it’s 50.12% to 49.88%.

———

Historically it has been rare for the popular-vote leader to win over 50% of the popular vote and yet lose the electoral-college vote. In fact Samuel Tilden is the only candidate in history so far, who won a majority — not just a plurality — of the pop vote, yet lost the election to R.B. Hayes.

Usually when the E.C. has chosen someone besides the pop-vote leader, nobody got a majority of the pop vote.

Suppose the pop vote is split 39%-38%-23% or something. An E.C. decision might be a good way to keep those 38%+23%=61% from feeling like their votes had no chance to be influential. Or something.

But suppose the split is more like 49.4% - 48.6% - 2.0%. What would we want to happen then?

———
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
chiarizio
Archmage
Archmage


Joined: 23 Jun 2007
Posts: 1789
Location: Bungula Qintaurion, Toliman

PostPosted: Tue Dec 04, 2018 9:22 pm    Post subject: Augurs Reply with quote

In a sci-fi novel I once read, which I deeply regret I can’t recall the title nor author of, there was a high office that went to the person whose predictions had come true, more than anyone else’s.
In contrast all other political offices were decided by how many citizens one represented.

Ancient Rome had a college of augurs. At various times there were three, or nine, or fifteen, or twenty-five, augurs.

I propose (in some fictional polity or other) a college of fifteen augurs with staggered five-year terms; that is, every year, three of them are up for re-election or for being replaced.
A person becomes an augur in a manner similar to Presidential appointment and Senatorial confirmation in the US, or the Honors List in the UK, or the Magistry in Auntimoany.

But the rank of Chief Augur is more meritocratic, or more supernatural, depending how you think of it. Each year, all the predictions each individual augur has made that year are tallied, and evaluated — did the augury come true, or not? The augur with the best record becomes Chief Augur for the next year.

The Chief Augur has official powers beyond augury. All the other magistrates or high muckety-mucks or whatyacallems must take him/her into consideration.

He/she could have powers similar to the monarch elemtilas posted about recently; or to Auntimoany’s Excisioners; etc.

This power might be circumscribed by a requirement that if the other augurs thought it were overstepped then the overstep would have to be withdrawn.

The Chief Augur’s power might be implemented by a right to appoint a member of his College (of Augurs) to attend some governmental function, and temporarily interrupt its proceedings if it were taking an unfortunate turn, long enough to point that fact out.

The purpose of such an office would be, if the course of government were turning out to be unhealthy or unfortunate or unpeaceful for the nation, the Augurs — especially the Chief Augur— could immediately halt the slide down the slippery slope and get the rest of the government to reconsider. Each Augur could act more quickly than any deliberative body.

Whatcha think?

Basically the College of Augurs guards the commonwealth/republic against unforeseen turns of luck.
_________________
"We're the healthiest horse in the glue factory" - Erskine Bowles, Co-Chairman of the deficit reduction commission
-----------------------------
I am also eldin raigmore.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    conworlds.fun Forum Index -> World & Culture All times are GMT + 2 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group