CoS Amendment: Judicial Election Process

[FortyJ]

Your analogy is slightly off the mark. The President's roles are clearly defined and are substantially different than that of any of the advisors, or any other elected position for that matter.

The Chief Justice, on the other hand, has no special privileges compared to the other justices. He has no veto authority over the rulings of the Associate Justices. He has no authority to appoint replacements. There is no in-game function that he alone is responsible for. He merely has his opinion on judicial matters just like the other two justices have their opinions, and those opinions are equally weighted.

Granted, he is charged with certain housekeeping tasks, such as posting in the Judicial Log and maintaining the Official thread for the Judiciary, but could we not just as easily assign these tasks to a "lesser" justice who we could label the Clerk of the Court? After all, some of the responsibilities currently assigned to the Chief Justice might be considered beneath a person holding such an esteemed office.

Finally, if we do hold a separate CJ election, we run the risk of not having an extremely qualified and competent justice serve on the court simply because he or she did not win the CJ race. Anyone doubting this assertion need only look back a few weeks to our original elections in which ravensfire and cyc tied in the CJ race. A victory by either one of these individuals would have resulted in the other not serving on the bench. Certainly, the other individual deserves to be on the bench as well, albeit in a lesser capacity.

So should we allow the runner-up in the CJ race to automatically serve? We would have to change the AJ poll to only 1 individual then. But what if the CJ race is a close 3-way race? Should we then forego the AJ altogether? Methinks that leads us back to the consolidated poll proposal.

 

[dreiche2]

hey bill,

you say:

"Change the law so that it is okay to run for both CJ and AJ in the same election."

you mean two polls in the same election process, one for CJ, one for AJ, and its okay to candidate in both, right?

cause i see another problem here (at least at first glance): if person A is canditating for both positions, and I want this person to be in the Judiciary, i would to have to vote for him in both elections to be sure. and if there is only one vote in both polls then again i could effectively only cast one vote for actually three positions.

even if there is two votes in the AJ poll, i would still have to reserve one vote for candidate A, so i can only vote for two persons in three positions.

do you know what i mean? (i might have overlooked something)

i still think: either do the elections one after another or make a single election with multiple votes, so that the "best" one will become CJ and the next two AJs..?

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

@FortyJ: I see what you are saying, but my point is that are we trying to make this so complicated when it was fine before. Run three elections, run two elections, or whatever. Simply allow someone to run in both the CJ and AJ elections. Done.

If the Chief Justice does not have significant responsibilities. Why do we have one? I say abolish the office then, and go with three justices.

To further the President analogy, the President doesn't really have any power at all either. In fact, the President was recently forced to make a game move he was very against, and one that was to the detriment of our nation. In effect, he was subserviant to the Military Department. So in many ways, the CJ is more powerful than our President, in that at least he or she can generally do what he or she wants.

@dreiche2: Yes, I mean be allowed to run in two elections. Historically in this game we had no problem with that.

To all, it is a good possibility I am missing the point here. However, my understanding is that we wanted to ensure we got good people on the bench in a world where we wanted to limit elections.

So we bent the judiciary election to be different than all others in the hopes of accomplishing that, rather than saying, "hey, the judiciary elections were fine, no matter the name of the offices."

I am just not seeing the benefits of these changes. Citizen complaint or Public Investigation. Judge Advocate or Associate Justice. The truth is, we want three people to meet to help us work through these problems we have with our laws. Whatever you call em, we want the three folks willing to take a thankless job, where in many cases half the people are going to be convinced that you are a loon for thinking that way.

However, one of those three has responsibility to report to the public on the results of those discussions, and how they will impact the nation. That person has a higher burden, and I am not going to cry if we don't do it, but I feel the CJ should be a stand alone election.

Just my .02

 

[FortyJ]

I think we've put some good arguments on the table here for both sides. Maybe it's time we composed a proposal and poll this matter rather than continue to debate it ad nauseum.

 

[dreiche2]

ok, so whats the official procedure to do this?

i will just name two alternatives that in my opinion should be part of the poll:

1. One multiple-choice poll for the whole branch with no vote limit.

(This is if you think that CJ and AJ is basically the same, or that CJ is just a little bit more so that it is ok that the "best" becomes CJ and the second and third become AJs, but basically the same candidates apply for all positions)

2. Two seperate polls for CJ and AJ, with the latter taking place *after* the CJ has been decided about.

(So that candidates can still apply for AJ if they did not win the CJ election, but you have still influence on all positions as a voter, which you would not have if both elections took place simultaneously)

well for the second case you probably have to split up the choice to define how the AJs should be voted (e.g. again multiple-choice etc.)

what do you all think?

 

[DaveShack]

There are two ways to do this:

• Pick one of the alternatives with the most support and put it forward for ratification. Advantages: it may be successful in one step. Disadvantages: don't really know if the people would have preferred the other option(s).
• Have a poll with all the options. Then have a ratification poll for the one with the most support. Advantage: we know exactly which one has the most support. Disadvantages: a little more time taken to do two polls.

Since we have lots of time, let's nail down language for all the proposals and run a poll to select which one has the most support, and then another poll for ratification. We need to target 1/22 for completion of the whole process, to allow plenty of time for correct nominations to be posted.

Let's have a proponent of each option bring it forward in rough draft legal format. The ensuing discussion can fine-tune it and we can aim for a poll lasting 3 days starting 1/13. Then the winning proposal can be submitted for ratification for 4 days ending 1/20. This leaves us 2 days to address any issues which might come up.

Any comments on the proposed process, before we get started on the actual change itself?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I think we can post a poll for the concepts themselves right now, and then submit the winner for ratification. I would say:

1. One multiple-choice poll for the whole branch with no vote limit.

2. Separate polls for CJ and AJ, with the AJ poll being multi-choice(no limit)

3. Separate polls for all three positions.

Also, keep in mind that allowing a candidate to run for both CJ and AJ in Option 2 may be unconstitutional. And dreiche2, I don't think we would be able to hold elections at different times, so unfortunately your Option 2 would probably not pan out. Sorry.

 

[dreiche2]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

Also, keep in mind that allowing a candidate to run for both CJ and AJ in Option 2 may be unconstitutional.

oh, so do we have to clarify this in advance, or will we change the law afterwards? (well, after the ratification poll is too late, of course)

i any case we have to specify this in the poll, because the possibility to run for several position would be an important aspect of the new election procedure. it also applies to option 3 i think. (a splitting of the above options or a second poll about this might even be neccessary ?)

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

And dreiche2, I don't think we would be able to hold elections at different times, so unfortunately your Option 2 would probably not pan out. Sorry.

well, if you say so, but this at least narrows my favored options down...

EDIT: or on a second thought, DZ, did you mean that the option to run for several positions should left out right away?

 

[ravensfire]

dreiche2,

To allow a candidate to run in multiple elections within the same branch will require changes to the current laws. Please read through the CoS election stuff - for right now that can be found in either the Poll sub-fourm (CoS Section X - Election - or something like that) or the Citizen syub-forum (DG4 Election Process, or something like that). I leave finding the actual threads as an exercise for the reader.

-- Ravensfire

 

[dreiche2]

ravensfire and others:

I have been reading through the whole constitution and I couldn't find something about running for multiple positions being illegal (as long as you dont accept multiple positions in the end). Can someone help me out?

On the other hand, this line

"
A7.c
No citizen will vote more than once in the same poll
"

could be in conflict with multiple-choice polls, even if it probably wasn't its intention to address them.

?

 

[ravensfire]

Try looking here.

Specifically, D and D.1.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

As an interesting option, we could try an experiment. Create a sample poll, with sample candidates and positions and request the citizens to vote in this poll.

Let's try out some of these ideas and see how they would actually work.

For some parameters, I would suggest a field of 3-4 candidates interested in the CJ position, and 6-8 candidates for the AJ positions (including CJ candidates above).

-- Ravensfire.

 

[DaveShack]

A poll on the options has been created here.

 

[DaveShack]

The poll on which option for electing the jucidiary would be preferred has closed, with very strong support for the multi-choice option.

 

[DaveShack]

Let's do a little fine tuning of the CoS amendment for judicial elections, and go through the remainder of the amendment process.

Here is an excellent proposal from earlier in the thread, with slight modifications..

III. Polling
    1. Judiciary exceptions:
      i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for the Judiciary branch.
        a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
           only the recipients of the three highest vote totals will be elected.
      ii. The nominee with the most votes shall be the Chief Justice.
        a. Should a tie exist for 1st, the nominees tied for that 
           position shall be listed in a poll to determine who shall be
           the Chief Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.  The person
           receiving the 2nd most votes in the poll if there are two
           candidates tied shall be an Associate Justice.  If there are
           three or more candidates tied, the 2nd and 3rd place shall
           be Associate Justices.
      iii. The nominees with the 2nd and 3rd most votes shall be the Associate 
           Justices, unless a tie existed for 1st most votes.  If there
           are two tied for 1st, the 3rd place from the original multi
           choice poll shall be Associate Justice.  If three or more tie
           for 1st in the multi-choice poll, the associate justices shall
           be determined as specified in foregoing section 1.ii.a.
      iv. Should a tie exist for 3rd, only those nominees tied for that
          position shall be listed in the run-off poll to determine who shall
          be the final Associate Justice. This poll shall last for 2 days.
    2. At-Large Governors
      i. There shall be only 1 multi-select poll for all At-Large Governor
         positions.
        a. This poll will list all the candidates and instruct the citizens that
           only the recipients of the X highest vote totals will be elected,
           where X is the number of At-Large Governor positions for the election
           cycle.
      ii. The top X candidates, where X is the number of At-Large Governor 
          positions for the election cycle, shall be the At-Large Governors
      iii. Should a tie exist between two or more citizens for the final 
           At-Large Governor position, a run-off poll listing only those
           citizens shall be posted.  This poll shall last for 2 days.

[/QUOTE]

 

[Furiey]

Perhaps to cover all options we should include the possiblity of a tie for second place to go between iii and iv, something like:

Should a tie exist for 2nd, in the case of a two way tie
both candidates shall be Associate Justices.  In the case of a tie
with more than two candidates, only those nominees tied for 
2nd shall be listed in a run-off poll, the top two of which shall
be Associate Justices. This poll shall last for 2 days.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Is there any more discussion on this? I would like to put this forward so that it is the standard for the Term 2 elections.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
Is there any more discussion on this? I would like to put this forward so that it is the standard for the Term 2 elections.

Please feel free to push it through, I'm on a business trip and barely have enough cycles to browse the forum for the next 3 or so days.

 

[ravensfire]

The proposal looks good to me as is.

I think both Furiey and DS have sections that are needed for ties in the Associate Justice position, I just think that we can replace them with one clause.


iv. Should a tie exist for either Associate Justice position, where there are more candidates tied than positions available, a run-off poll shall be posted. This poll shall list only the tied candidates and the number of positions available. This poll shall be a single-select poll (standard format), and be open for 24 hours. The candidate(s) with the most votes shall be elected to the position(s).


-- Ravensfire