Citizen discussion: Our rules and the term two judicial elections...

Well, once again we have a confusing mess regarding our judicial elections.

The number two vote getter, bootstoots, withdrew from the judicial race during the election in order to be FA minister. The number three vote getter, Octavian X, ran unopposed for Trade & Technology minister. Octavian X (to my knowledge) has not declared which office he prefers.

Bootstoots has posted this in the term two judiciry thread:

DZ has given me permission to make the call on the electoral matter. As there are no election laws regarding withdrawals, it seems apparent that it can be interpreted as a vacancy because they were already on the ballot, or as removal of that citizen from the ballot. The Election Office has decided that withdrawals should be treated like they were in past DG's as a removal from the ballot, but recommends that a standard be passed to codify this issue one way or the other.

As a result, the current justices are ravensfire (chief justice), Strider, and a vacancy to be filled by an appointment from zorven.

Click to expand...

So, once again, we have a moderator stepping in to make unilateral decisions on our election preocess. (Donovan_Zoi apparently gave bootstoots permission to decide who was in the judiciary.) Once again we have some one involved in a contested judicial election (bootstoots was the number two vote getter) making unilateral decision about the validity of the contested election. We also have an admonition from another moderator, eyrei, to point out rule problems through discussion threads rather than legal wrangling.

DZ has posted that Octavian has opted for T&T minister. and asks whether both AJ positions should be considered vacant. Bill_in_PDX has also asked for a JR and contingent CC in response to bootstoots's declaration quoted above.

So, here is a dicussion thread. What do we do now?

It is my opinion that, YES, both AJ positions should be declared vacant and subject to the proper appointment procedure outlined in H.3 of our CoL. Of course the trick there is that a triumverate vote is needed to appoint an AJ and no provision is made for having to fill both AJ positions. It would seems sensible to allow the new President and CJ to appoint the first AJ, then the new AJ could join those two in appointing the other AJ. Whether these appointments are subject to a refusal poll is also a question that needs to be addressed.

Please discuss this issue here in the hope that we can quickly and peacefully resolve this crisis.

Well, it doesn't really matter to me which way we go on this issue. If we treat this as a dual vacancy then we should have the president and the CJ determine who the first of the two AJ's should be, and that AJ should participate in appointing the other one. I don't think the law specifies what to do in case of withdrawals, however.

I agree with eyrei that this should be handled peacefully then just filing a CC against a person. There is much better ways to work it.

Also, this discussion will just be based on what a person thought happened. There is no possible way this discussion can become of any merit unless a large sum of people our thinking the same thing. Otherwise it'll just become another pointless debate.

Let's leave it as it is and start a discussion on how to fix the problem from arising again.

One way to fix this problem permanently would be to actually elect a head of the election office. This election would obviously need to be before the elections begin. This person would be responsible only for making rulings regarding disputed elections, and would obviously not be able to run for another position.

Whatever ruling made by this person would be legally binding, and would prevent us having to waste time trying to decide who fills a spot in the government.

donsig,

I only told Boots to make the call, as he is running the Election Office. Based on our CoS, the Election Office makes the call. Once a decision was made, I said it could be reviewed from there.

So my basis for consulting Boots(I was asked) was based on law, and not moderator whimsy. For the record, donsig, I agree with you on what the outcome should have been.

So the outcome is still as I posted last night, with ravensfire, Strider, and Peri on the bench, but subject to later review to determine if this was the right course of action?

Originally posted by Bootstoots
So the outcome is still as I posted last night, with ravensfire, Strider, and Peri on the bench, but subject to later review to determine if this was the right course of action?

Click to expand...

That puts us essentially the same spot we were in last term, with the sitting judiciary having to rule on its own legitimacy. That didn't work last term. We ended up with a split judicial decision that ended up being invalidated. We are also still waiting for a determination on the legality of term one's judicial electins, a determination that would have helped us now had it been allowed to proceed.

As for things standing as posted last night, I do not believe Peri was mentioned in that post. Also, since DZ has indicated above that he was not acting as moderator when he told bootstoots *to make the call*, I think bootstoots's post should be invalidated. I would ask for a judicial review on the matter, but once again, we don't have a court to appeal to.

Originally posted by Strider
Also, this discussion will just be based on what a person thought happened. There is no possible way this discussion can become of any merit unless a large sum of people our thinking the same thing. Otherwise it'll just become another pointless debate.

Click to expand...

On the contrary, we can try discussiong this rationally and if our laws (as written) allow it we can poll for a decision if there is no concensus.

@eyrei: I appreciate your proposal to avoid this in the future but I opened this thread in hopes of dealing with the current situation. We need a determination on who is actually sitting on the bench now.

@DZ: Even if the Election Office is authorized to *make the call* it cannot flount, ignore or otherwise disregard our Three Books. J.3.d.1.C clearly states:

C. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate Justices.

What gives the election office the authority to countermand this clearly written clause of the CoS? I understand the withdrawl argument but it holds little weight for me. Once on the ballot we have no physical means of removing candidates, short of starting the election all over. Since citizens voted in good faith for the withdrawing candidate their votes should not be invalidated. If a candidate wins but decides he or she does not want the job after all then formal resignation should be the course taken rather then dropping out of the race midway.

It matters not what was done in previous demogames. For one thing we have revised rules simply because we did not want to do things the same way as before. Also I believe our method of electing our judiciary is unprecedented in previous demogames. Therefore what we did before is inapplicable to what we are doing now.

Once again, it seems clear that Ravensfire, bootstoots and Octavian X were elected to the judiciary. The latter two repudiated their victories to accept other jobs. According to the laws we have in place the AJ positions should be filled via appointments.

I'm inclined to agree with you, donsig, about what should happen regarding this election. I did not see CoS J.3.d.1.c when I scanned through the ruleset looking for anything that might make this invalid, and that seems to be clear on this issue. In light of this, I now feel that we should have appointments for two of the judiciary seats. Zorven has already appointed Peri to the bench, and (providing there are no refusal polls and that ravensfire agrees with the appointment) Peri, ravensfire, and zorven should appoint the other AJ.

I have seen no announcement of Peri's appointment. It's a great choice but can you direct me to the official appointment? Or is the new President going to wait until actually taking office before making appointments?

Right here:

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1560415#post1560415

I have come to agree with donsig on the idea that the judiciary elections have been an abject failure in both terms.

I can agree with the idea that both positions can be filled via appointment. However, we have no laws allowing for that, and Strider was elected fair and square.

Let's not bypass the existing laws we have just to make a solution work. Let's fix the law.

Originally posted by Bill_in_PDX
I have come to agree with donsig on the idea that the judiciary elections have been an abject failure in both terms.

I can agree with the idea that both positions can be filled via appointment. However, we have no laws allowing for that, and Strider was elected fair and square.

Let's not bypass the existing laws we have just to make a solution work. Let's fix the law.

Click to expand...

What are your reasons for saying Strider was elected fair and square? He came in fifth and received two votes. By placing a fifth place candidate on the bench we are bypassing existing laws which clearly state that the second and third place candidates will be associate justices. There are also laws which state what we do in the event of vacancies - laws which would be bypassed by placing Strider on the bench.

BTW, I am officially retracting my statement made last night that Strider is on the judiciary.

As a citizen, I DEMAND that the Election Office get their act together and determine the official results of this election.

NOTHING can happen until such an action occurs.

The current post in the Election Results thread indicates that Octavian and Boots both withdrew from the race. Obviously, the post above contradicts that statement.

Once they have determined the official results, I expect them to post those results in the Election Results thread. The lack of communication on this matter is not helping this situation.

-- Ravensfire

donsig, I think Strider was elected because others withdrew ahead of him before the end of the election. Therefore he finished in the top three.

It is the post Zoven election/resignation confusion that bothers me most.

However, I think this is what we get when we try to elect three positions at once, and allow people to use that election then as a safety net in case they fail to win the election they really want.

We have definately reaped what we sowed here.

The Election Results post has been updated. Oct and I are still listed as having withdrawn because we did withdraw, but as the second and third place candidates we have declined the positions, making them vacant.

I thank the Election Office for finally getting the results out.

I'm assuming that the results are basically you and Octavian were elected to the Office. You then both withdrew/resigned from office, creating the vacancies, correct? Thus, you have made it impossible to withdraw from a race prior to it's conclusion.

I am most distressed at the appearance of what happened. The Election Office posted TWO sets of official results. Apparently, it caved into pressure from the public and changed its mind.

Whether that decision was right or wrong, a dangerous precedent has just been set. The Election Office cannot get it's own rules straight, can't make up it's mind the first time, and will bow down to public opinion.

Although I agree with the second "official" results, I have about as much faith in them as the first.

For the next Election, I expect the Election Office to explain to Fanatica some of these rules it uses. I want to know how to withdraw from a race, and the impact it has. When must such an action occur? Absent any laws, the procedures of Election are being set by this unelected office. After term 1, I was hoping for something better.

-- Ravensfire

Well ravensfire, it's sounds like you have about as much faith in the Election Office as I have in the Judiciary. The term one judiciary had no qualms about appearances so why should the Election Office? If the term one judiciary can post a majority opinion and then erase it, then the Election Office can *change its mind*. The precedent was set last term.

It is not right of you to berate bootstoots so. He did not usurp power in an effort to decide who was on the judiciary. He was apparently given that power by our rules. It should not be up to the Election Office to make decisions about withdrawing from races. It should not be up to the judicary to make decisoins about withdrawing from races. It is up to us a group to make decisions about withdrawing from races. We should have a law in place to deal with it.

BTW, if you're distressed now how are you going to make it to the end of the term? You've got a busy month ahead of you!

donsig,

My distress is at the changes, apparentely in response to public opinion. Like anyone else in some type of an office, I expect those in the Election Office to perform their functions. Given the obvious concerns that citizens had over the elections, I assumed they post the results once and be done with it.

That didn't happen.

It is correct that the Election Office DOES have the power to create the rules for the election in the absence of law - I mentioned that in my post. Absent a law, the Election Office, not mob rule, needs to make that decision in consulation with the moderators of this forum.

I referee High School volleyball. When I'm the up referee and make a call, that's it. I wait for my line judges and down ref to tell me what they saw (usually hand jestures at most), and go with that. A few times they have changed their mind after their initial signal, or the down ref and I need to discuss the timing of several faults, but I don't change my mind from listening to coaches.

I have been the down ref when an up ref changes in mind in response to coach pressure. It happens once, and all night long you get an earful. As I said, my problem is not the decision, but the appearance of what caused the change. Long term - that did not help the job of the Election Office.

And yes, it appears to be yet another long term. On well, time to order several gavels!

-- Ravensfire

It seems to me that those posting in this thread seem to agree that withdrawals are not allowed. Therefore, Boots and Oct declined their positions which has left 2 vacancies. Does this sum up how we are going to handle this?

If so, I think using CoL Section H.1 would apply, as these 2 positions were vacant at the beginning of the term. Section H.3 (mid-term vacancies) would not apply. Therefore, it would be up to the President to fill the vacancies.

What are your opinions?