Has potential. Couple of minor things I would suggest:

Read Sect 3, Cl. 8, I think it has a word missing (FOR 5 days?)

I think the "approval vote" part for the chair needs expansion. Nothing is mentioned on what it needs to pass (assumed 50%+1) and possibly needs something on what happens if the vote fails.

Good job overall though!

Reply

2. I was using Tsu's original language, so assumed this was already defined? If not, I'm happy with Unibot's definitions because that is what I thought was covered. Would there be any benefit in adding a section defining General Laws?

I wasn't making a comment on your proposal as much as I was asking a question that I had had for months. I honestly didn't know the difference between CoL amendments and General Laws.

Nothing.  Just the way Unibot files them.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Has potential. Couple of minor things I would suggest:

Read Sect 3, Cl. 8, I think it has a word missing (FOR 5 days?)

I think the "approval vote" part for the chair needs expansion. Nothing is mentioned on what it needs to pass (assumed 50%+1) and possibly needs something on what happens if the vote fails.

Good job overall though!

Well spotted! I've added the missing word "for" into Section 3, Clause 8.

In respect of the approval vote part, I agree it needs expansion for clarification but probably not just for the Legislative Chair. An unintended consequence of changing the original proposal is it requires clarification on the positions of the other offices. If I'm reading the Code of Laws and Charter correctly, the forum currently votes for the Delegate, Cabinet, justices etc.

In all honesty I could go quite radical but as this was intended to be about the legislature and not electoral reform I'm going to compromise with myself and propose a status quo solution. Therefore, I'm proposing (and would very much welcome comments and views upon) the following:

Change to the COL:

Article 1: Elections

Section 2 - Position Specificities
1. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will run on a joint ticket and be elected by a majority vote of the Assembly. If no ticket receives a majority vote a runoff election with the two tickets receiving the most votes will occur.
2. Cabinet offices will be voted on separately by The Assembly and be elected by a plurality vote.
3. Court Justices will be voted through a single ballot in The Assembly, with the three candidates who receive the most votes winning seats.
3. 4.In all elections an option to re-open nominations will be included. For non-judicial elections, if this option receives the most votes the nomination period for that office will be restarted.
4. 5.For Court Justice elections, if the option to Re-Open Nominations receives enough votes to be placed within the top four, then the nomination period will be restarted for all seats with lesser votes than this option. The candidates who receive the top votes will win however many seats are left to be filled.
5. 5.The Legislative Chair will be subject to an approval vote of 50%+1in the General Congregation.The Assembly may by a majority vote of 75% in favour override the decision of the General Congregation in the event of a failure to approve the Legislative Chair.

(This post was last modified: 01-20-2015, 03:58 PM by Overseer Staedtler.)

Reply

I think that clarifies it a lot more, but would still be interested to see what others think.

Reply

I like this a lot and would support its implementation. Three cheers for Hop!

Turtles all the way down.

Reply

I've incorporated Post #13's amendments into the proposal subject to a slight reordering (moved the Legislative Chair election details above the two parts on re-opening nominations as it seemed to sit better with elections) and reworded the provisions on the election of the Legislative Chair slightly as shown in red:

Section 2 - Position Specificities
1. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will run on a joint ticket and be elected by a majority vote of the Assembly. If no ticket receives a majority vote a runoff election with the two tickets receiving the most votes will occur.
2. Cabinet offices will be voted on separately by The Assembly and be elected by a plurality vote.
3. Court Justices will be voted through a single ballot in The Assembly, with the three candidates who receive the most votes winning seats.
4. The Legislative Chair will be elected by a vote of 50%+1 in the Assembly subject to an approval vote of 50%+1 of the Legislative Chair-designate in the General Congregation. The Assembly may by a majority vote of 75% in favour override the decision of the General Congregation in the event of a failure to approve the Legislative Chair-designate. In the event that the override vote fails to achieve the majority vote of 75% or the Legislative Chair-designate withdraws their candidacy nominations for the Legislative Chair will be reopened in the Assembly.
5. In all elections an option to re-open nominations will be included. For non-judicial elections, if this option receives the most votes the nomination period for that office will be restarted.
6. For Court Justice elections, if the option to Re-Open Nominations receives enough votes to be placed within the top four, then the nomination period will be restarted for all seats with lesser votes than this option. The candidates who receive the top votes will win however many seats are left to be filled.

The change was to clarify the position in respect of the nominations and what happens in the event that the override vote were to fail or the Legislative Chair-designate withdraw after not receiving the required 50%+1 approval vote from the General Congregation. It was all tacitly in there previously but thought it best to clearly spell it out.

As always, I would welcome any suggestions for improvement in the wording or if anyone notices any holes in the proposed Bill!

I intend to finalise the draft tomorrow night (22nd).

Reply

I would suggest splitting that into three clauses so it doesn't look massive, like...

4. The Legislative Chair will be elected by a vote of 50%+1 in the Assembly subject to an approval vote of 50%+1 of the Legislative Chair-designate in the General Congregation.
5. The Assembly may by a majority vote of 75% in favour override the decision of the General Congregation in the event of a failure to approve the Legislative Chair-designate.
6. In the event that the override vote fails to achieve the majority vote of 75% or the Legislative Chair-designate withdraws their candidacy nominations for the Legislative Chair will be reopened in the Assembly.

Reply

I would suggest splitting that into three clauses so it doesn't look massive, like...

4. The Legislative Chair will be elected by a vote of 50%+1 in the Assembly subject to an approval vote of 50%+1 of the Legislative Chair-designate in the General Congregation.
5. The Assembly may by a majority vote of 75% in favour override the decision of the General Congregation in the event of a failure to approve the Legislative Chair-designate.
6. In the event that the override vote fails to achieve the majority vote of 75% or the Legislative Chair-designate withdraws their candidacy nominations for the Legislative Chair will be reopened in the Assembly.

Good idea. It reads a lot better that way! :smiling:

Reply

I would suggest splitting that into three clauses so it doesn't look massive, like...

4. The Legislative Chair will be elected by a vote of 50%+1 in the Assembly subject to an approval vote of 50%+1 of the Legislative Chair-designate in the General Congregation.
5. The Assembly may by a majority vote of 75% in favour override the decision of the General Congregation in the event of a failure to approve the Legislative Chair-designate.
6. In the event that the override vote fails to achieve the majority vote of 75% or the Legislative Chair-designate withdraws their candidacy nominations for the Legislative Chair will be reopened in the Assembly.

Do we need to legislate for a run-off then ... as we have for delegate/vd?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

I think I would leave the runoff for a future discussion.

1. Because we could be considering electoral reform in the future which would replace the need for runoffs.
2. Because it'd complicate the proposal more. Best work out the kinks later, as opposed to proposing something too unwieldy to begin with. 
3. I'm not sure that bloke would run a second time if he just went through two really unfortunate votes.
4. It's unlikely to become an issue.

(This post was last modified: 01-22-2015, 11:13 AM by Sandwich Territories.)

Reply