ravensfire said:
Let's start this off RIGHT!
Questions for the candidates:
1) How will you organize and conduct the affairs of the Office of the Censor?
According to the law, common sense, and tradition, in descending order of priority.
2) Will your procedures require the use of Public polling in Opinion polls, Referendum polls and/or Initiative polls?
Polls about individuals must be private.
Binding polls not about individuals must be public.
Non-binding polls are at the whim of the originator.
3) Do you believe that the Censor has the power to validate/invalidate Initiative polls?
The Censor's primary purpose is to manage the affairs of the Citizen's Assembly, including Assembly Floor Votes. Floor votes and Initiatives are the same thing by different names. Some people will say they are not because they have different names, but I have always held a very strong opinion that the meaning of the law is far more important than the words used to convey that meaning. One person wrote "Initiative" for a concept and another person wrote "Floor Vote", but they are the same concept.
By this logic, the Censor is required to uphold the law on polling standards, however unlike some earlier occupants of this office, I would
not necessarily automatically "invalidate" a poll if the polling standards can be complied with by another means.
4) What do you believe happens to invalidated polls?
A Censor who is committed to doing the whole job and not just wielder of a rubber stamp would either correct what needs to be corrected, or repost a valid poll so that the people can have their say. An invalidated poll would most certainly not be left to "die on the vine", nor would I require the original poster to do the work of reposting.
5) Will your procedures clearly state all polling standards you will use?
Most definitely!
6) Will you use the Office of Censor to delay, stall or avoid posting or validating polls that you strongly object to, but are correctly posted?
Definitely not! I am strongly opposed to the concept of denying the people a chance to make a decision. Once the people are presented with a clear and unbiased choice, their decision must not be tampered with.
I would, however, work towards revisiting bad decisions via appropriate means, which typically would include further discussion on the matter and possibly another poll. I would not hesitate to advise officials on ways to honor the people's choice while allowing them a chance to change their mind.
7) Why do you feel that you are the superior candidate for this office?
In all my Democracy Game positions, I perform my duties with speed, accuracy, and a common sense approach. (RL permitting
)
I also take the straightforward common sense interpretation of our laws regarding polling, which is
official == binding.
It does not matter to me whether an initiative is posted by an official (making it an "official poll" by my opponent's definition) or by a citizen (making it "not official"), what matters to me is that it is binding.
Likewise I take the simple, straightforward interpretation of Referendum vs Initiative. Referendum = "one shot", Initiative = "permanent". An official can post an initiative -- to disallow this strips that official of citizen's rights, something I'm not prepared to do.
[edit]
I also believe the Censor should perform a public service of pre-validating polls on request. Citizens who choose to use this service may submit their poll proposal to my office, and I will point out any aspect of it which conflicts with the polling standards. I will also be willing to post polls on behalf of any citizen who requests it, to reduce the chance of problems.
