Election Reform (Consitutional Proposal)

[GenMarshall]

I am relativly new at writing new laws and consitutional proposals so please bear with me. After the recent event that happened in the term 4 nominations, both people had different views on wether or not they made it into the ballot or not due because of not missing the deadline. I am not sure which part of the consitution it would fall under, so I did not include a number and a letter code. I wish to have this fixed so that people whom were appointed EC offical by Chieftess wont be getting the "conflict of intrest" cries and dont have to bear the weight.

Here goes:

The Nomination deadline for accepting and/or declining nominations will 
be at 00:00 GMT (8:00pm EDT, 7:00pm EST), Any acceptance posts will be null 
and in void after the time listed.

Also, as CT pointed out that none of us are on the same time (Some of us are 5 mins fast, some are dead on exact, and some are 5 min slow, etc) and that we should have a standardized time that everyone can agree with insted of the forum/server time which tends to be different for some people.

 

[MOTH]

CivGeneral, you beat me to it. I was thinking along these same lines. I would like to suggest that this be part of the Code of Laws and not the constitution.

I would make it CoL section H as it provides guidelines modifying Article H "nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election."

I think the following Dates and Times and deadlines for all election events should all be stated in the new law. Events I can think of:
Date/Time for nomination start.
Duration of nominations (from nomination start post).
Date/Time for general election start.
Duration of general election.

Here is my stab at a proposed law:

Code of Laws Section H:
      1. Nomination threads shall be normally be opened on the 24th
         of each month at approximately 00:00 GMT (this is 7 or 8 PM
         Eastern time of the 23rd.)
      2. Nominations and acceptances must normally be posted within
         72 hours of the thread being opened.  This signals the start
         of the general election per Article H of the constitution.
      3. Election poll threads shall be normally opened shortly after the
         nomination period has ended and will be open for 72 hours.
      4. Variation in any of the start times or durations are allowed 
         due to real life practicality reasons.
      5. If a start time is greater than 2 hours from the normal time
         then the poster shall include a brief explanation for the delay.
      6. Variation in the duration of the nomination period must be 
         clearly stated in the first post of each nomination thread and
         shall include the number of days, hours, and/or minutes that
         the nominations will be open.
      7. The duration of the Nomination threads and Election Polls 
          should be stated in the narrative of the first post of each.

I've left off run-off polls as I have no idea on the details of these polls.

By using a number of hours from the start of the thread we remove the variability of forum time and individual time. Anyone can see the timestamp on the first post and that time is in the same frame of reference as the time of any other post.

I believe that this in basically in line with current practice, but please feel free to correct anything. I try to cover all the bases with the minor points. Subsection 4, 5, and 6 are to try to not make the poster be responsible for absolute timeliness and to address real life concerns while providing clear info to the citizens trying to accept or vote.

 

[Cyc]

Looks good to me MOTH. I'm really tired of looking for the start/end date and times. They never seem to be posted. I also believe the duration of the Nomination threads and Election Polls should be stated in the narrative of the first post of each. Sort of like a standard blurb that can be copied and pasted to each.

 

[gert-janl]

It looks very good indeed.

 

[MOTH]

I've added Cyc's suggestion as subsection 7.

 

[DaveShack]

Looks good to me MOTH. I'm really tired of looking for the start/end date and times. They never seem to be posted. I also believe the duration of the Nomination threads and Election Polls should be stated in the narrative of the first post of each. Sort of like a standard blurb that can be copied and pasted to each.

Yes indeed, we used to have that and it was very helpful. The election office got a kind of black eye after T1 of DG4, but at least those volunteers were very thorough in the non-controversial aspects of their work.

 

[classical_hero]

Should there be a contingency when there is a candidate that does not get 50%+1 of the vote? Would that automaticly mean a run-off poll for the two highest candidates? Would there be any options for prefential voting?

 

[MOTH]

Should there be a contingency when there is a candidate that does not get 50%+1 of the vote? Would that automaticly mean a run-off poll for the two highest candidates? Would there be any options for prefential voting?

Ties and run-offs are covered by the constitution Artlicle G part 1. I could see a posibility to include those in this proposal, but someone other than me would need to come up with that part as I've never seen them in action so I don't know the workings. The 50%+1 issue would need to be a modification or addition to that article G I tihink.

As far as preferential voting, I think this would need to be a seperate proposal as it would IMO be highly controversial for an election.

 

[gert-janl]

I would suggest to focus this particular amendment only on the need for clear deadlines. It also increases chances that it will be passed.

If necessary, we can later amendment other parts in either the CoL or the Constitution.

 

[Provolution]

Well, deadlines were not posted, so on a second count, last minute sign ups should be added as valid sign ups. This election, like the one I attended for Term 2 was a joke, with 3 repolls as the norm. I am sick and tired of Banana Republic Style management.
I want Northern European structured democratic principles to prevail, with transparency, accountability and a defined flexibility based on proper prior information.

 

[ravensfire]

Hmmm - gotta ponder a bit on this one.

My initial thoughts are that the existing framework (Con Art. G) is fine, we just need to add some additional structure and information. Much of this could actually be done through the EO adopting and posting some guidelines and rules that require the EO to perform specific duties.

I also want to explicitly include information on who is in the EO, and how the citizens/court remove people from the EO that fail to live up to those rules. The time of the EO be unresponsive and beyond liability must end.

-- Ravensfire

 

[gert-janl]

I also want to explicitly include information on who is in the EO, and how the citizens/court remove people from the EO that fail to live up to those rules. The time of the EO be unresponsive and beyond liability must end.

Good idea. I think it would be wisest though to add all these things in the CoL instead of adopting them only as a procedural framework for the EO. That way the procedures can be backed legally.

 

[GenMarshall]

CivGeneral, you beat me to it. I was thinking along these same lines. I would like to suggest that this be part of the Code of Laws and not the constitution.

I would make it CoL section H as it provides guidelines modifying Article H "nor shall have more than one accepted nomination at the commencement of the general election."

I think the following Dates and Times and deadlines for all election events should all be stated in the new law. Events I can think of:
Date/Time for nomination start.
Duration of nominations (from nomination start post).
Date/Time for general election start.
Duration of general election.

Here is my stab at a proposed law:

Code of Laws Section H:
      1. Nomination threads shall be normally be opened on the 24th
         of each month at approximately 00:00 GMT (this is 7 or 8 PM
         Eastern time of the 23rd.)
      2. Nominations and acceptances must normally be posted within
         72 hours of the thread being opened.  This signals the start
         of the general election per Article H of the constitution.
      3. Election poll threads shall be normally opened shortly after the
         nomination period has ended and will be open for 72 hours.
      4. Variation in any of the start times or durations are allowed 
         due to real life practicality reasons.
      5. If a start time is greater than 2 hours from the normal time
         then the poster shall include a brief explanation for the delay.
      6. Variation in the duration of the nomination period must be 
         clearly stated in the first post of each nomination thread and
         shall include the number of days, hours, and/or minutes that
         the nominations will be open.
      7. The duration of the Nomination threads and Election Polls 
          should be stated in the narrative of the first post of each.

I've left off run-off polls as I have no idea on the details of these polls.

By using a number of hours from the start of the thread we remove the variability of forum time and individual time. Anyone can see the timestamp on the first post and that time is in the same frame of reference as the time of any other post.

I believe that this in basically in line with current practice, but please feel free to correct anything. I try to cover all the bases with the minor points. Subsection 4, 5, and 6 are to try to not make the poster be responsible for absolute timeliness and to address real life concerns while providing clear info to the citizens trying to accept or vote.

I agree with this version, Though the times should also take into account the daylight savings time that some people may or may not observe

 

[Crimso]

I propose a full explusion of citizens who do not recognize day light savings.

 

[blackheart]

I propose a full explusion of citizens who do not recognize day light savings.

 

[GenMarshall]

Now that is taking it to the extreame . Personaly, I beleve we should repsect users who reconizes or does not reconize DLST

 

[Black_Hole]

I propose a full explusion of citizens who do not recognize day light savings.

i fail to see how that would help....

 

[mhcarver]

Should there be a contingency when there is a candidate that does not get 50%+1 of the vote? Would that automaticly mean a run-off poll for the two highest candidates? Would there be any options for prefential voting?

I used to think that was a good idea. It was thrown around at the end of the term 1 elections when 7 or 8 people ran for culture advisor, however the problem is that we would have to start nominations 3 days earlier in order to have time in case of a runoff (I think)

 

[Black_Hole]

just a question, and I mean no offense to anyone
i thought the eo office was just the mods, but now I see Cg posting polls, is this a 1 time thing where CT was busy or was he selected by the mods?

 

[Strider]

just a question, and I mean no offense to anyone
i thought the eo office was just the mods, but now I see Cg posting polls, is this a 1 time thing where CT was busy or was he selected by the mods?

Chieftess was going to be gone, and asked CivGeneral to post the polls for her.