Users browsing this thread:

**Amerion** · 11-06-2018, 01:56 PM

Section 3 of the Legislator Committee Act provides:

Quote:(3) A legislator fails the voting requirement if they are absent for more than half of all votes finished in the previous calendar month, if a minimum of two votes occurred. Legislators who have an approved leave of absence from the Chair shall not be considered absent for votes in the given time frame.

To my knowledge, it makes no mention of whether the vote is for a law or for a candidate in an election. In the past, only votes taken within the Assembly have contributed to a Legislator's voting record.

However, I am curious whether, in the future, we should also count a Legislator's vote in an election towards this voting requirement.

It is arguable that a vote in an election is of greater consequence than one for a law, and given that only Legislators may vote in forum-side elections (with the exception of stage two in a Delegate election), is it not fair to count that vote as well?

What are your thoughts?

**Seraph** · 11-06-2018, 02:00 PM

I wouldn't be opposed to making this change, but, equally, I wouldn't be worried if it stayed as it is, either.

I suppose the question to ask is, what effect would this have on elections?

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

**Amerion** · 11-06-2018, 02:32 PM

(11-06-2018, 02:00 PM)Seraph Wrote: I wouldn't be opposed to making this change, but, equally, I wouldn't be worried if it stayed as it is, either.

I suppose the question to ask is, what effect would this have on elections?

Hmmm. I'm not certain but surely it could only improve the turnout.

Nakari · 11-06-2018, 02:45 PM

What if someone votes using private ballots?

**Amerion** · 11-06-2018, 02:49 PM

0.o

*Lightbulb breaks*

That is a good point. Short of the EC providing the LegComm/CoA with a list of everyone who used private voting, this change in policy is unfeasible.

**Rebeltopia** · 11-07-2018, 11:57 AM

Id say we make the change regardless for clarity.

"...if you're normal, the crowd will accept you. But if you're deranged, the crowd will make you their leader." - Christopher Titus
Deranged in NS since 2011

One and ONLY minion of LadyRebels
The OUTRAGEOUS CRAZY other half of LadyElysium

POSITIONS! POSITIONS, EVERYONE!!

Quotes

**Amerion** · 11-07-2018, 01:22 PM

Would this change be considered an infringement on their right to remain anonymous in voting (given that in elections where only a few private ballots are cast, it may not be too difficult to work out who voted for whom)?

While I'm supportive of including elections in the vote record, I'd like to hear what people think before making a final determination.

Nakari · 11-07-2018, 01:55 PM

We don't get too many private ballots any more. I think it would be way too easy to work out private votes from this. That's my biggest problem with this.

Two other things I'd want before making these votes part of the official requirement:

- in Assembly votes, the option to abstain is right there. I'd want the EC to always make it clear people can vote to abstain, as prominent an option as it is in Assembly votes.

- I'd want the EC to have to draw more attention to the election, or have the CoA promote the election. If I remember correctly, for our last two elections there weren't even Discord pings at vote time. Which is fine, I guess, means people have to be paying attention to get to vote. But if we make voting in elections mandatory, we should expect Discord and dispatch pings.

**Belschaft** · 11-07-2018, 02:36 PM

I didn't do a dispatch for the Cabinet elections but I did ping people on Discord, and even wrote up some fake news articles to promote them.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Amerion** · 11-08-2018, 04:14 AM

(11-07-2018, 01:55 PM)Nakari Wrote: We don't get too many private ballots any more. I think it would be way too easy to work out private votes from this. That's my biggest problem with this.

Two other things I'd want before making these votes part of the official requirement:

- in Assembly votes, the option to abstain is right there. I'd want the EC to always make it clear people can vote to abstain, as prominent an option as it is in Assembly votes.

- I'd want the EC to have to draw more attention to the election, or have the CoA promote the election. If I remember correctly, for our last two elections there weren't even Discord pings at vote time. Which is fine, I guess, means people have to be paying attention to get to vote. But if we make voting in elections mandatory, we should expect Discord and dispatch pings.

The Voting Instructions for the 2018 Cabinet Election stated that abstentions were an option available to voters. However, this was not a prominent notice and there were no such instructions provided in individual voting threads such as the one for the Prime Minister. I agree that in the future, Election Commissioners should provide a more thorough set of instructions and highlight to voters their option to abstain.

As to your second point, a future policy will lay out exactly when and how notices are distributed to Legislators, including persistent pings for election matters.

I would like to leave this discussion open for another 5 days. If a majority of respondents in this thread do not have an issue with mandating election votes counting towards their record, it will become an official policy of the Chair.