[Ammendment] Election Act - Local Council Elections |
My fellow legislators,
I come before you after a call on the RMB about the nomination period of the Local Council Election. There was an issue brought up about nomination times, and how some nominated individuals did not receive their notification of nomination in time for the close of the nomination period. I am not here to lay the blame on any person: as a previous Election Commissioner for the Local Council election, I know how hard it can be sometimes to get the message out in a timely manner, especially when the nomination is done late and one cannot reach out to the nominee in time. Thus, I have come up with two possible ammendments in hopes to make it easier for both the Election Commissioners and the Nominees to get those nominations done within a reasonable time frame. I present two in hopes to get various viewpoints on a solution. Option 1: Elections Act Wrote:5. Local Council Option 2: Elections Act Wrote:5. Local Council Although I prefer Option 2 as it gives more time to get nominations in without slowing down and cutting the campaign times of other candidates, I also appreciate having a set closing time for nominations before the voting begins as it is easier to keep track of the candidates. I do not however believe in adding any extra time to the nomination period without removing it from somewhere else (notably the campaigning period), as the LC elections are long as is. Thus, I propose these two options for debate in this Assembly.
I prefer option 2 also, but I would word it so there is still a distinct three day nomination period. The difference to note would only be that candidates can accept nominations right up to voting.
Furthermore, I've spotted an error in the original act. In (1)c it says " a three voting periods of 3 days will start." We need to stop that 'a'. I'll try and draft an alternative to option 2 when in on the laptop. 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
Okay, here goes nothing:
Option 2b Elections Act Wrote:5. Local Council (I've taken the liberty of cleaning up a few more typos whilst I was at it, so even if you don't accept this proposal, please can we keep the fixes!?) 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
Again, I gotta say, this is something the LC should be deciding for itself. Things like this are a perfect example of how the LC knows itself and what will and won't work.
I think we should simply let the incoming LC write their own local election law. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(02-20-2017, 09:57 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Again, I gotta say, this is something the LC should be deciding for itself. Things like this are a perfect example of how the LC knows itself and what will and won't work. Note: This isn't facetious or meant to be unduly snarky. I'm honestly asking here because these are some of the things I've discussed with the LC. Can we codify that? This seems to be the issue that seems to have the most rub between the LC and Assembly, that we don't quite know what can be done. I think it's also relevant to point out that Feir is an Local Councillor at the moment. So, can we decree the change into being?
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
I did *try* to codify that: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4715.html
It hasn't made it to a gameside vote yet. We would also have to remove LC elections from the Elections Act, since the LC can't pass laws that contradict constitutional laws. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Leaving this in the hands of the Local Council makes sense.
I honestly don't see how this isn't a matter for the Assembly as well as the in-game region; once again, I must remind people that the in-game region wants a closer relationship with the government and better integration, not greater separation. The government of the South Pacific can't simply keep saying "If it happens in the region it's nothing to do with us" and expect to remain the government of the South Pacific. It's not realistic.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator (02-20-2017, 12:07 PM)Belschaft Wrote: I honestly don't see how this isn't a matter for the Assembly as well as the in-game region; once again, I must remind people that the in-game region wants a closer relationship with the government and better integration, not greater separation. The government of the South Pacific can't simply keep saying "If it happens in the region it's nothing to do with us" and expect to remain the government of the South Pacific. It's not realistic. I'm not sure anyone is saying that. Glen said that this should be left in the hands of the Local Council, because Local Councillors are likely to have a better idea of how Local Council elections should be handled. I'm not sure how devolving decision making to the Local Council to address a matter that is clearly more in their wheelhouse is promoting separation, so much as trusting and empowering the Local Council. Why would the Assembly legislate on a matter the Local Council is more competent to address?
(02-20-2017, 10:31 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: I did *try* to codify that: http://tspforums.xyz/thread-4715.html I thought this did pass? Bel? Feir? But I agree with the latter point, but what we've been having the issue with since the election law covers in game but is primarily an Assembly-driven Act.
-tsunamy
[forum admin] |
Users browsing this thread: |
1 Guest(s) |