Those wishing to run for Supreme Court Justice may begin campaigning now for an election that will happen within the next 2 weeks.

After the Supreme Court is installed, campaigning will begin for the Presidency and Senate.

First, we will probably campaign/elect the President before we begin the process with the Senate. This is because we are very early in the process, and with fewer people it allows whoever doesn't get elected President to run for Senate if that is their desire.

Second, my idea for the Senate elections is as follows: If there are five people campaigning, they will run unopposed (other than abstain) in their own Senatorial election. If a 6th (or 7th, 8th) enters the campaign, I will put the first five names in a hat/bowl and draw. The name that I draw now has someone to run against. With the 7th person campaigning, it would only be the 4 remaining unopposed that would be subject to the draw, etc, etc.

If anyone has any other ideas, start trying to convince me now. The newly elected judges will also be involved in this process.

Addit: I made a test poll but I'm not sure it's the way to go.  Here's an idea.  We elect a person (or it could just be one of the judges) with whom we can each pm our votes to.  This way, we can monitor cheating and invalidate any... invalid votes.  Only problem is it's not public and perhaps not such a good idea.  Another thought I had was that we set up 5 districts and cantidates declare which district they wish to run under.  This would essentially mean the election goes down the way Mongoose suggests but there is a choice to a small degree to who you are running against.  None of these solve all of the problems but perhaps it will inspire someone with good analitical skills to come up with a good solution.

As I wrote elswhere, none of this is particularly complicated. Why go out of our way to make it so? 5 polls, one for each seat, some unopposed if need be, random drawings for those polls with multiple candidates. Simple, effective, and all out in the open eliminating hassles down the road.

ADDED: Presidential Campaigns can now begin!

I agree on first clause, but disagree on second. See below

I agree.

This is the closest to what I think would work best, but see below.

Agreed, this adds complications that are unnecessary.

I agree.

I agree.

Agreed

There are two other possible solutions. One of which would be quite laborious and time consuming. One of which would be much quicker and easier, but might be a bit more hard on the feelings of candidates?

(7) Have a poll for each Senate seat, sequentially. Seat one is open for 48 or 72 hours with all candidates listed as possible Senators. Everyone gets a chance to cast ONE vote in this poll until it is closed down, and the winner of Senate seat one is determined.

Next, the poll for Senate seat two is opened, and every eligible canddiate, except the winner of seat one is listed as a candidate. Same procedure.

Repeat ad infinitum. I realize that with Senate seats reopening every few turns, this one would be prohibitively laborious.

(8) Have one poll for each candidate with one tick box in the poll; basically a confidence/no-confidence poll. Basically, casting a vote for a candidate in this format simply equates with casting a vote that you think they are worthy of a Senate seat, not any specific seat. Anyone in the DGame can "vote" for any of the candidates, but obviously can only vote once for each candidate. Every candidate's poll opens up at the same time, and is open for the same period of time (72 hours or whatever). Once time has elapsed, the total number of votes each candidate has received are examined. Those who got the highest number win the seats.

If there are intended to be specific representational constituencies of some sort, then the winner of the largest fraction of confidence votes gets allocated the seat that has the largest constituency, the next most "popular" gets the next biggest seat and so on.

The problems that option (8) might present is that, it is possible that (a) everyone in the DGame will vote for every candidate, and there will then be too many winners, or (b) only a couple of candidates will get any votes! and thus, only a few of the seats will be filled by representation. However, note that, both of these "quandries" woudl represent the most "democratic" outcomes in that, the quandries would reflect the will of the people. This is not an uncommon problem in realworld democracies (witness historic American voter turnout below 50%). Also, who cares if everyone who wants to run for Senate wins? Is it really necessary that it be limited to only 5 or 7 seats? (however many it is). If 9 candidates want to run, and all nine get 100% support from the electorate, then why not simply have NINE SEATS!?

The solution to both of these quandries would be that the Supreme Court solves them. If (a), the Supreme Court could simple roll a dice and randomly exclude candidates through elimination, else decide based on their own expert opinions who is most meritorious. If a tie-breaker is needed, the President could provide the third vote in this.

If (b), the Senate likewise can either randomly or democratically choose among the remaining candidates who got zero votes.