| Election Commissioner(s) |
|
I'm actually very upset about this. I voted "aye" on the proposal because I thought it was the vote to split the Elections Act. I blame myself for not reading it thoroughly, but my last post in the thread was:
"Yeah, we don't even know which proposal we're voting on. Please don't jump the gun. I think approval voting would be good to use for the Courts, but I still prefer FPTP with runoffs for Cabinet." A specific proposal was never chosen by consensus, nothing was resolved, and this was quietly rammed through because no one was paying attention. An overhaul of our electoral system is a massive thing, and, honestly, I feel betrayed. Unibot got the proposal he wanted by ignoring concerns and using his position as Chair to trick the Assembly. Considering how thoroughly consensus is sought by the Chair on most other issues, I find this extremely suspicious. I am probably most upset because we allowed this to happen. I allowed this to happen. But I'm not content to say "well, what's done is done." This is a problem.
I didn't "trick" anybody. I honestly didn't read the thread after it received motions and seconds; if I had read others' concerns about the proposal, I would have delayed it. It was pinned at the top and I was more focused on the major debates happening below it. When the proposal was voted at such a high margin, I figured the proposal must have been supported fairly widely and I went on with other business.
I contacted Tsu this week asking him these questions (whether there was anyone prepared to use condorcet-IRV) and I didn't get a full answer back, so I brought it up here later. I also think it's unfair to say "no one was paying attention," I just received several queries from TSPers keeping silent now who just told me that they knew what the vote was for when they voted - and I fear this discussion is being pulled aside by a loud minority who should have taken more care in voting. Clearly, some of us were paying attention and some of us were not. Voting on the creation of the Election Act ended March 6th, voting on amending the Election Act ended March 9th - they never even coincided. NOW. What we could do is in the future require markup in proposals, as I've suggested, to help readers recognize what is being amended. I was only using the current procedure which I inherited from a previous administration. Procedure which could be changed.
When exactly does the admin team plan on starting elections?
And which Admin isn't running?
It probably would have been a good idea to sort this all out before today.
Look can we stop arguing about the laws? Unless you want to delay the elections, have a debate about what system we should use, and then vote on it lets move on to who will be the Election Commissioner and getting these elections going.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
The only one who is delaying naming an Election Commissioner is the Admin Team, Punchwood.
We're all waiting for them to say who amongst them isn't running and who will be EC. It's all on them right now.
To answer the matter you mentioned earlier Uni, I think it would be a good idea in future to highlight the changes made. I did realise what was being voted on this time, as I had queried what we were voting on a minute or so after it being seconded, but there have been occasions where it is not clear from the topic title what the vote is about, and little help in the text. A link to the discussion topic as a minimum would help.
(03-15-2015, 06:55 PM)Aramanchovia Wrote: To answer the matter you mentioned earlier Uni, I think it would be a good idea in future to highlight the changes made. I did realise what was being voted on this time, as I had queried what we were voting on a minute or so after it being seconded, but there have been occasions where it is not clear from the topic title what the vote is about, and little help in the text. A link to the discussion topic as a minimum would help. Well, sometimes I'm in a hurry and putting a link to the discussion topic means I need to go back and forth between the two threads to build the voting thread. I think we stopped doing the markup in voting threads when we switched to IPV, because it's more difficult to copy and paste marked-up laws with MyBB, because the code doesn't seem to survive the copy/paste well. I'll do my best though. |
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |