Users browsing this thread:

**Seraph** · 09-23-2016, 12:56 AM

(09-22-2016, 09:51 PM)Omega Wrote: Quick legal 2 cents here. This does resolve the conflict between the Charter and the Elections act, as to when Chair elections happen.

Personal opinion now: What if we had real runoffs instead of instant ones? I mean it's just something we could think about. besides we have a week between the end of the election and the new cabinet taking office so we would have time for a runoff.

What advantage would we gain from working out run off elections separately (if needed)? I don't really see any and it would take so much time.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

Sam111 · 09-23-2016, 12:59 AM

I don't like them, and I'm glad they're gone.

**Belschaft** · 09-23-2016, 09:43 AM

Further changes in blue; I've added RON, and tried to address all of Elu's issues.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 09-24-2016, 07:13 AM

Several comments.

RON: Adding RON gets rid of one of the selling points you made pro IRV, however - once RON is added, then any election with two candidates will not be mere FPTP as RON will be part of it as well. On the other hand, having RON for uncontested elections is a very good idea, as it can be a trigger to get people running that weren't so sure before, thereby at least spurring the debate. I'd prefer RON to only be an option in the first round of an uncontested election.

EC: While I certainly appreciate generalizing the language in EA 1.3, I fear this generalization is a bit too broad, specifically as it pertains to the cabinet. To illustrate a few of the consequences: A cabinet member could oversee the election of another cabinet member in a special election - not desirable. Furthermore, an outgoing cabinet member shouldn't oversee the election for the incoming cabinet either, which this language allows. I'd prefer if this section includes both standing for and holding the office to be elected, and ensures that cabinet members can't elect each other.

EC, the second: I really don't understand the point behind changing EA 1.4. I don't particularly mind removing the permanence, but I am strongly opposed to removing the Assembly's power to remove an EC member.

IRV: Fine with me, though I'd prefer if all acronyms are defined (FPTP is just plopped in there, for example) and the actual process explained. People shouldn't be looking it up in Wikipedia instead of our laws on the procedure.

**Belschaft** · 09-25-2016, 10:49 AM

Roavin;

RON: Under IRV elections can still default to FPTP, even with the inclusion of RON - the election ends as soon as a candidate has a majority of votes, and this can happen in the first round. Further, under OPV people can simply vote for one candidate if they wish, again enabling a default to FPTP in some cases.

EC: I'm concerned about practicalities here. I'm not sure that having a current official act as an election commissioner could compromise the process; there is no greater opportunity for corruption or manipulation with them, not greater incentive. As the EC consists of a justice, an admin and a CRS member we in effect have a limited pool of possible commissioners - establishing further limits seems counterproductive.

EC2: The theoretical "permanence" of the EC does not reflect current practice, and lacks flexibility. As there is no appointment or election process for the EC - it being a self-selecting body - it further seems redundant to me. In regards to the Assembly's ability to remove an EC; this isn't really that important as the EC only exists during election periods, and isn't a standing body, but there is a general recall provision now rather than the previously limited one.

IRV: I'm not sure about this; I don't really see the logic of making our laws longer by replicating information that is already readily available elsewhere. It seems redundant to essentially copy and paste wikipedia and stick it in our laws. However, if there is general agreement that this is desirable it's something I can do.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 09-25-2016, 12:46 PM

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: EC: I'm concerned about practicalities here. I'm not sure that having a current official act as an election commissioner could compromise the process; there is no greater opportunity for corruption or manipulation with them, not greater incentive. As the EC consists of a justice, an admin and a CRS member we in effect have a limited pool of possible commissioners - establishing further limits seems counterproductive.

I need more than 2 hands to count the number of times people called into question the integrity of elections because sitting office holders (myself and others) were running them. This history was not that long ago.

***Tsunamy*** · 09-25-2016, 04:31 PM

Part of the problem involves the fact that elections are staggered. Really, current officer holders shouldn't be running elections for other positions.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

***Roavin*** · 09-25-2016, 06:40 PM

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: RON: Under IRV elections can still default to FPTP, even with the inclusion of RON - the election ends as soon as a candidate has a majority of votes, and this can happen in the first round. Further, under OPV people can simply vote for one candidate if they wish, again enabling a default to FPTP in some cases.

That's fine, so long as this is communicated effectively to the people voting (I doubt this is obvious to anyone who's not familiar with the terms IRV, OPV, FPTP). I'd still prefer a restricted RON though, but I'm fine with the alternative.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: EC: I'm concerned about practicalities here. I'm not sure that having a current official act as an election commissioner could compromise the process; there is no greater opportunity for corruption or manipulation with them, not greater incentive. As the EC consists of a justice, an admin and a CRS member we in effect have a limited pool of possible commissioners - establishing further limits seems counterproductive.

A cabinet member being involved in the election of the next cabinet would be suspicious af, in my mind. The screams of "Oligarchy" will surely ring loud.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: EC2: The theoretical "permanence" of the EC does not reflect current practice, and lacks flexibility. As there is no appointment or election process for the EC - it being a self-selecting body - it further seems redundant to me. In regards to the Assembly's ability to remove an EC; this isn't really that important as the EC only exists during election periods, and isn't a standing body, but there is a general recall provision now rather than the previously limited one.

I actually disagree that the permanence does not reflect current practice - in practice, Feirmont is the guy running the elections (and well!), with Res stepping in for the one election where Feirmont was not eligible to be EC. Still - I don't mind if it's gone, as I imagine it will remain the same in practice, though I still question the "why".

On the recall provision, I wouldn't interpret it to apply to the EC if I were justice, as the EC is neither appointed nor elected. So, as I see it, there is no recall provision in your draft for the EC. I'm fine with the generalized language (I usually am Tounge

), so long as it's fixed to implicitly or explicitly include the EC.

(09-25-2016, 10:49 AM)Belschaft Wrote: IRV: I'm not sure about this; I don't really see the logic of making our laws longer by replicating information that is already readily available elsewhere. It seems redundant to essentially copy and paste wikipedia and stick it in our laws. However, if there is general agreement that this is desirable it's something I can do.

Well, let's get an informal poll Happywide

I'm for including the definitions, appropriately simplified and tailored, in the law.

Feirmont · 09-25-2016, 08:02 PM

We couldn't just name me permanent EC could we?

helping not helping

#EC4Lyfe

Previous Positions

**Belschaft** · 09-26-2016, 12:30 PM

I can change "Any elected or appointed official of the Coalition" to "Any official of the Coalition" if that works for you Roa?

I'll expand on the language in the other places you've raised issues with tomorrow.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES