Election Reform (Consitutional Proposal)

[Strider]

I would like to bring back the debates, for some reason they were completely taken out of the election process. How can the citizens elect the right person, if all they have to go on is a name? Some citizens ask questions of candidates, but the candidates do not have to answer the questions, neither are all of the candidates asked.

 

[GenMarshall]

My theory is that the questions were repetitive and most of the citizens would know the answers right away for the majority of the questions (This only applys to the vet or big name players)

 

[Strider]

My theory is that the questions were repetitive and most of the citizens would know the answers right away for the majority of the questions (This only applys to the vet or big name players)

I would still like to seem them back.

 

[MOTH]

I too would like to see a period for debate. I think 24 hours between the close of nominations and the start of the election polls would allow for this.

I am undecided on if it should be part of this proposal. I would need to see the general feelings on this. Basically I would not want to include anything too controversial in this proposal to increase the likelyhood that this will be approved.

 

[Sir Donald III]

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.

Well, for that latter part, perhaps we could have the Domestic Minister recommending, and the President apponting, a "Supervisor of Elections" no later than the 15th day of a term. (Gives us enough time to sort through any Confirmation Polls.) That person shall be tasked with the initiation of Nomination and Election threads, and would be prohibited from running for any office during his/her tenure as SoE. (This does not, however, prohibit that person from being considered for a deputy position in the case of an uncontested election.)

This appointment would be for a single term's election (including any and all runoffs).

But that's probably for a later proposal.


As for the debates, the only way you could have debates is in a chat. And A: not many people attend TCs anyway, and B: some nominees may just not be available to be online at a certain time on certain days.

 

[Ashburnham]

I like the idea of debates. I think chat debates could be doable. The only people who would need to attend would be the candidates and a moderator (not a forum moderator, just someone to head the debates). The chat log could be posted on the election thread and citizens could read it at their leasure. The questions could be whatever people post on the election threads prior to the debate. The problem, of course, is timing. But, hopefully, the candidates could work out a mutually suitable time.


Alright, perhaps I haven't totally thought this through. But I think the idea of chat debates would be a great addition to our elections.

 

[MOTH]

My thoughts were that there should be a period of questions and answers prior to the start of polling. I don't think the chats work as most of the answers require longish answers and the chat would get confusing with multiple posts.

 

[gert-janl]

I am also against debates in a chat. A forum is the best option for that, because you can make longer comments, to explain your answers better, and secondly can more people actually view your answers.

Also with debate chats you will exclude citizens. Keep it on the forum!

 

[Provolution]

Chat debates are for the Huns. Kill the men and drive their crying women and children in front of you! I had enough Anarco syndicalist mumbo jumo chat mob rule. If people cannot handle one coherent thought in more than 10 minutes or 5 paragraphs of solid logic or doctrinal statement, they should be lobotomized and fed to the dogs!

And Yes Nobody, I am almost the DG's Michael Corleone, and not kind of faggy (Weak).

 

[gert-janl]

That's an other to way to put it

Chat debates are for the Huns. Kill the men and drive their crying women and children in front of you! I had enough Anarco syndicalist mumbo jumo chat mob rule. If people cannot handle one coherent thought in more than 10 minutes or 5 paragraphs of solid logic or doctrinal statement, they should be lobotomized and fed to the dogs!

 

[MOTH]

I have decided that I am in favor of a 24 hour period for forum debate and/or question and answers.

I have also decided that I don't want to see it as part of this proposal (although I wouldn't vote against it).

 

[Cyc]

Well, personally I feel 24 hours is insufficient. Trying to get everyone to answer all the questions in that short period of time may not work. Run the debate thread (questions collected and prepared beforehand) during the Nom period. As soon as someone accepts, they answer the debate questions. Sort of like the second shoe falling.

 

[Ashburnham]

Chat debates are for the Huns. Kill the men and drive their crying women and children in front of you! I had enough Anarco syndicalist mumbo jumo chat mob rule. If people cannot handle one coherent thought in more than 10 minutes or 5 paragraphs of solid logic or doctrinal statement, they should be lobotomized and fed to the dogs!

Well, after reading that argument, I suppose I'll have to back down . Regardless of whether they're held in the chat or on the forum, I think official debates are something that we should implement right away.

 

[Strider]

Forum debates is what I meant, a debate thread for each office. We can put nominations back by 3 days and give 3 days for debates. 24 hours of this will be citizens posting the questions, and the other 48 will be questions and the candidates answers.

I believe we should also limit to ONLY answering the questions, and no direct attacks on the other candidates.

Also, I think that we should allow chat debates, but not require them. If two candidates want to arrange a time and debate in chat (which happens to be much faster and better suited for debates), then they should be free to do so.

 

[Black_Hole]

Forum debates is what I meant, a debate thread for each office. We can put nominations back by 3 days and give 3 days for debates. 24 hours of this will be citizens posting the questions, and the other 48 will be questions and the candidates answers.

I believe we should also limit to ONLY answering the questions, and no direct attacks on the other candidates.

Also, I think that we should allow chat debates, but not require them. If two candidates want to arrange a time and debate in chat (which happens to be much faster and better suited for debates), then they should be free to do so.

that sounds like a good idea 3 days for nomination, 3 for debating...
but i dont think we can outlaw personal attacks, but of course the moderators will step in when its too far, but some stuff like "Remember when they missed instructions 3 TCs in a row?" type things should be legal

 

[uXs]

Forgive a newbie for butting in:

Judging from previous posts in this thread, there have been problems with run-off votes in the past.

It comes to mind that there are methods of handling elections where you have more than 2 candidates for 1 office:

1) First past the post
=> I don't like this system, but it's easy to do.

2) Instant run-off voting
=> Fairly easy to understand, has some room for tactical voting.

3) Concordet
=> Seems rather complicated to figure out, but supposedly has no room for tactical voting.

Both options 2 and 3 do need a polling method where citizens can rank candidates in order of preference. Is this technically feasible ? (Without making polls automatically public, because I'm against that.)

 

[MOTH]

Forgive a newbie for butting in:

Nothing to forgive. We were all newbies once and this is a good question. Its good to see newbies becoming active (says MOTH on page 8 of the citizen registry to uXs on page 9).

Judging from previous posts in this thread, there have been problems with run-off votes in the past.

It comes to mind that there are methods of handling elections where you have more than 2 candidates for 1 office:

1) First past the post
=> I don't like this system, but it's easy to do.

2) Instant run-off voting
=> Fairly easy to understand, has some room for tactical voting.

3) Concordet
=> Seems rather complicated to figure out, but supposedly has no room for tactical voting.

Both options 2 and 3 do need a polling method where citizens can rank candidates in order of preference. Is this technically feasible ? (Without making polls automatically public, because I'm against that.)

First, I'd like to say that I would like to see any changes to the methods of voting be in a separate proposal. I would like to see this proposal go forward as formalizing the timing of nominations and elections.

Preferential voting could be done and remain a private poll. With 3 candidates (A, B, and C) the poll would have 10 options:
1. A
2. A with 2nd preference for B
3. A with 2nd preference for C
4. B
5. B with 2nd preference for A
6. B with 2nd preference for C
7. C
8. C with 2nd preference for A
9. C with 2nd preference for B
10. Abtain.

There is a limit as to how many candidates this could work for as the number of poll options increases exponentially as the number of candidates increase. 4 candidates would be 17 options and 5 candidates would be 26 options.

None of this adresses what would happen in a 2 person election with a tie. As such, I prefer leaving the tie-breaking procedure as it is now with a secondary run-off election.

 

[uXs]

After re-reading the constitution, it seems that I was confused about the voting method currently used: I thought a candidate needed a majority and that this was done with run-off voting. This would off course interfere with the voting schedule desired, because these run-off thingies take time.

I will reconsider my proposal for replacing the "first past the post" system that is now in use, because I still don't like it, and perhaps re-submit it for discussion at a later time.


Another remark, which is hopefully more relevant: article G, section 1 of the Constitution contains the following: "... In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days, and be repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie."

I can accept a run-off poll between the tied front-runners, but that it should be "repeated as often as needed to resolve the tie" strikes me as ludicrous and as possibly having the effect of crippling the government while this tie is resolved. Therefore, I propose that this section be amended to say the following:

"... In the event of a tie between two or more front runners, a runoff poll shall be opened between those candidates only. This poll shall run for 2 days. In the event of a tie in the runoff poll, the acting President shall cast the deciding vote. If there is no acting President, the poll will be decided by a roll of a die."

I'll be happy to open a new thread about this if it is deemed necessary.

 

[ravensfire]

Another proposal - includes debates and some structure to the EO.

Code of Laws Section H:
      1. Nominations
         a.  Nomination threads shall be normally be opened on the 8 days 
             before the end of the month at approximately 00:00 GMT (this 
             is 7 or 8 PM Eastern time of the 23rd.) in the main DG forum
             by a representative of the Election Office.
         b.  The initial post for each office will describe the office and
             the relevant dates for the election process.
         c.  A citizen may nominate any citizen(s), including themself, for
             each election.
         d.  A nomination is considered Declined until the nominated citizen
             posts that they accept the nomination.  All self-nomination are
             considered accepted unless posted otherwise.
         e.  Nomination threads are open until the first election poll is
             posted.  
      2.  Debates
         a.  Debate threads shall be opened at the same time the nomination 
             threads are opened, and be placed in the main forum by a 
             representative of the Election Office.
         b.  Any citizen may post a question for the candidates to answer.
         c.  Debate threads are open until the election polls close.
      3.  Elections
         a.  Election polls shall be opened approximately 3 days after the
             nomination threads are opened, and be placed in the main forum
             by a representative of the Election Office.
         b.  Election polls shall set as "private" polls, and set to close 
             after 3 days (72 hours).
      4.  Election Office
         a.  The Election Office shall be comprised of those citizens 
             willing to assist the election process.  These citizens are
             nominated by the President, and are subject to a confirmation
             poll.
         b.  The Election Office shall determine before each election who
             will be posted the threads for that election.
         c.  The Election Office shall maintain on the initial post of their
             thread the dates for the current and next election cycle.
         d.  The Election Office shall solicit and maintain a common list of 
             debate questions for each office.  This list shall be posted as
             soon as possible in each debate thread.
         e.  Any non-trivial differences in the dates/times threads are posted
             from the scheduled time should be noted by the Election Office 
             official posting the thread.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Provolution]

I think the Election Committe should be nominated for impartiality by the Judiciary, as too many cases have originated around the President Office.