Election Reform (Consitutional Proposal)

[Ashburnham]

I think uXs and Ravansfire have some good ideas. It's good to see that we're finally codifying a part of our government that has long been neglected.

 

[GenMarshall]

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.

I agree with Strider's proposal on the debates. I too personaly hate personal attacks against other canidates. I just hate to see mudslinging slung around this game.

 

[Strider]

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

I'm strongly against this, the Judiciary has always been anything but impartial. I think having nominations/elections for a single person to run the election office would be fine, this person would then choose the others who will work with them.

 

[Strider]

Another possible idea, the ability to accept nominations before nominations start. This will allow for those that are going to be gone over that period to run for office.

 

[MOTH]

Another possible idea, the ability to accept nominations before nominations start. This will allow for those that are going to be gone over that period to run for office.

Excellent point. Text such as "any citizen may open a pre-nomination thread in the main forum to post a self-nomination and acceptance for any office up to one week ahead of the normal nomination threads."

 

[classical_hero]

@ Ravensfire. There is no reference to the fact that the winner of each election poll should be 50%+1. The way we could do this is either by an automatic run-off poll if noone is above 50%. This could be shorter than the first poll. Another way would be by preferential voting. this could be done with those in the election office recieving the votes from the citizens. There still could be an election poll for everyone to vote for their first candidate. Run-offs or preferential voting would be only needed for elections with three or more condidates. This would mean that If someone I think that each election poll should get rid of the abstain option. This would mean that people would be forced to vote for one of the candidates. Should we make voting compulsory once you are a ciizen?

 

[MOTH]

I would like to see this resolved well before the next election. There have been a lot of ideas passed around, but some are too complicated for my taste. I specifically do not mention the debates (cause these happen informally now), or the criteria that someone is deemed to win (50%+1), as this Code Of Law change is meant to codify when elections are held and how long they last. IMO, other changes should be another proposal.

This proposed poll is a modified version of my earlier post and this is now in a form that is now ready for 2nds and 3rds (in the next 24 hours).

Proposed poll:
Do you approve of the following addition to our Code of Laws? Y/N/Abstain

Code of Laws Section H:
      1. Nomination threads shall normally be opened on the 7th day
          before the end of each month at approximately 00:00 GMT (7 
          or 8 PM Eastern of the 8th day).
      2. Nominations and acceptances must 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 opened shortly after the
          nomination period has ended and will be open for 72 hours.
      4. The duration of the Nomination threads shall be clearly stated
          in the narrative of the first post of each and shall include the
          number of hours that the nominations will be open.
      5. Non-trivial variations (> 2 hours) in start times or duration
          shall include a brief explantion of the delay in the narrative.

 

[ravensfire]

MOTH,

I'm going to go against your proposal.
-- No mention of debates
-- No mention of the EO - it's time that office gets brought under control
-- Too much reliance on unwritten custom that is not binding

I'm biased, of course, but I prefer my proposal. I do, however, like the idea of "pre-nominations" that you suggested.

classical hero, I understand your comments, but I don't know if we want to go down that road. With the inclusion of abstain, it's always going to be possible to have a < 50% winner. Indeed, a filibuster could be created where a defeated candidate gets their supports to vote abstain on all run-offs, causing an office to not be filled. Sticking with a system where the person that gets the most votes is simple, fast and works. Removing abstain would correct this, and might be an intersesting option. I don't like that, as it gives people the option to vote against all candidates. Remember that we use the vote totals to determine our census. Removing abstain would artificially lower that number.

As for making voting compulsory, that's a rather direct violation of each citizens right to free speech, which includes the right to no speech at all.

-- Ravensfire

 

[ravensfire]

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

Provolution,

It honestly doesn't matter who nominates the members for the EO. Someone will be happy, someone will be upset. That's a fact of life in the DG. I happen to prefer the President - call it based on reality and it's the simplest solution. Remember the confirmation poll - if a person is nominated that you don't like, you can create a confirm poll, and lobby to have the confirmation overturned.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Cyc]

I pretty much agree with Ravensfire here.

I don't think it should require a 50% +1 majority to win an election. A winner is a winner. I see no problem removing Abstain from election polls.

If that's the way we go, the President is a good choice to make the EO noms.

@Moth - Does H.2 allow for the pre-nomination period self noms with acceptance by people who will be away? Also, I believe H.5 should be reduced to >1 hour. It doesn't take two hours to set up elections.

Finally, I think Moth's proposal should have its numbering format changed. It should be CoL H, followed by a 1. All of the numbered paragraphs should be lettered a - e. This will allow another proposal later, to include the items Ravensfire and others want included to be put together and approved. Future amendments for Elections and/or the Election Office could just be added to CoL H as a new number.

 

[ravensfire]

Behold! I have brought this concept back from the brink of death!

Okay, two proposals are out there - here they are:
Proposal 1

Code of Laws Section H:
      1. Nomination threads shall normally be opened on the 7th day
          before the end of each month at approximately 00:00 GMT (7 
          or 8 PM Eastern of the 8th day).
      2. Nominations and acceptances must 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 opened shortly after the
          nomination period has ended and will be open for 72 hours.
      4. The duration of the Nomination threads shall be clearly stated
          in the narrative of the first post of each and shall include the
          number of hours that the nominations will be open.
      5. Non-trivial variations (> 2 hours) in start times or duration
          shall include a brief explantion of the delay in the narrative.

Proposal 2

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.

Comments?

-- Ravensfire

 

[mhcarver]

I like part 2 but the grammer in 1a and 4b need to be fixed

a should read( in my mind) :Nomination threads shall normally be opened 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.


4B should read(in my mind):
The Election Office shall determine before each election who
will post the threads for that election.

 

[mhcarver]

I like part 2 but the grammer in 1a and 4b need to be fixed

a should read( in my mind) :Nomination threads shall normally be opened 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.


4B should read(in my mind):
The Election Office shall determine before each election who
will post the threads for that election.

 

[Ashburnham]

I take issue with Proposal 2's part 2. What is being outlined there is exactly what already happens every election (replace "debate thread" with "poll thread"). I can't think of anything positive gained by part 2 except to clutter up the main board during election time.

 

[ravensfire]

I take issue with Proposal 2's part 2. What is being outlined there is exactly what already happens every election (replace "debate thread" with "poll thread"). I can't think of anything positive gained by part 2 except to clutter up the main board during election time.

I will agree with the clutter. The purpose is to pull out the debates from the nominations, to make the EO's job easier. How about moving the debates to the citizen sub-forum?

-- Ravensfire

 

[Sir Donald III]

Well, how about an Elections Forum. This can be used to hold Nomination threads, Debate threads, Election & Runoff Polls, and a Seaparate Thread for Endorcements. This would free up the clutter of these near-adverts from the Polls.


Alternately, we could move Debates, and separate Endorcements to the Citizens Forum (as the PD suggested), moving the Elections themselves to the Polls Forum, and put the Nominations in the Government Forum. (Nom Tracker can remain in the Main Forum.)

 

[MOTH]

The important thing is to get this codified before the next elections so that the process is clearly defined.

I like the first of the two options. This basically codifies what is happening now without adding a bunch of bureaucratic overhead. The debates are happening now in the nomination threads and are carried over to the poll threads if needed.

 

[Black_Hole]

The important thing is to get this codified before the next elections so that the process is clearly defined.

I like the first of the two options. This basically codifies what is happening now without adding a bunch of bureaucratic overhead. The debates are happening now in the nomination threads and are carried over to the poll threads if needed.

welll we have 6 days to pass these, also one important thing is if we pass this mid election process is should not be legal until after this election, that could get messy

imho #2 is much better

 

[Ashburnham]

On the whole, Proposal 2 says what it needs to say better than Proposal 1, but there's a lot of stuff in #2 that I'm not sure needs to be set into law. A little rewritting needs to be done before I can back it..

Section H.1d
"A nomination is considered Declined until the nominated citizen
posts that they accept the nomination. All self-nomination are
considered accepted unless posted otherwise."

Obviously if somebody nominates themself they're going to accept. We don't need to fill our Code of Laws with redunduncies.

Section H.2
"Debates"

Debates are already held informally during every election. There's a simpler way to handle debates than to codify it in this form.

Section H.4d
"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."

If we're not codifying debates, we don't need to codify the EO's response to it.

 

[ravensfire]

Ashburnham,

Normally, I would agree with you. However, elections are absolutely critical to get right, and we've struggled a bit to get them right in the past. I have minimal confidence in the EO, and in their ability to communicate with the citizens. Rather than leave it up to chance, I prefer to spell things out.

The debates are something from DG2 - actual debate threads. This keeps clutter out of the Nomination threads, making it easier for the EO to determine who is, and is not, a candidate. H.4d is intended to jump start the debates, by creating a standard list of questions for candidates to answer.

-- Ravensfire