Election Commission Confirmation of Crushing Our Enemies and Siwale

Seeing as to how both nominees have been invaluable to the Election Commission in their now-expires terms, I motion that this confirmation go straight to vote.
 
Do the nominees have any concerns about existing election law or procedures, or any suggestions for modifications that would improve their ability to perform their duties?
 
On the question of activity, do the prospective (and present) Commissioners have any view on whether it would be worthwhile to allow a Commissioner to declare themselves absent and thereby be deemed absent for the purposes of an election? I appreciate that there is presently provision that allows a Commissioner who is unwilling to supervise an election not to do so, I am thinking more about the broader role of Commissioners in overseeing the Commissioners supervising an election.
 
bootsie:
My question is for @Crushing Our Enemies. Will your activity improve over the next term, or do you foresee circumstances that will keep you from being more active?
Click to expand...
Tacking onto this question, over the past term, would I be correct in saying that COE did not officiate any elections since his last confirmation?
 
Dreadton:
Do the nominees have any concerns about existing election law or procedures, or any suggestions for modifications that would improve their ability to perform their duties?
Click to expand...
Easy. Merge the Judicial and General Elections together.

Zyvetskistaahn:
On the question of activity, do the prospective (and present) Commissioners have any view on whether it would be worthwhile to allow a Commissioner to declare themselves absent and thereby be deemed absent for the purposes of an election? I appreciate that there is presently provision that allows a Commissioner who is unwilling to supervise an election not to do so, I am thinking more about the broader role of Commissioners in overseeing the Commissioners supervising an election.
Click to expand...
I would be in favor of that. If a member of the Commission does not feel that they are available to oversee the election, I don't see what good forcing them to be "present" does. Adding more election commissioners would also help diminish the impact one unavailable member has on the process. 7-8 commissioners is a healthy number, imo. 6 can get a bit tricky.
 
Last edited:
For reference, the last three elections (July 2019 Judicial Election, September 2019 General Elections, and November 2019 Judicial Election) were supervised by Siwale and Owenstacey (in July), Eluvatar and I (in September), and Owenstacey and I (presently in November). Since I was confirmed to the Election Commission (on 13 July 2019) COE has not officiated any election. That being said, his most recent term as an Election Commissioner started on 25 May.
 
Any more discussion on this? Perhaps @Crushing Our Enemies would like to answer some questions directed at him? Their terms are expiring on the 25th, so I hope this can move forward soon.
 
I motion Siwale's nomination to vote. He has answered all the questions asked of him and there have been no further questions for him for several days.
 
The motion to vote and the second have been recognised. A vote will be scheduled to begin in about 24 hours.
 
I object to the decision to schedule a vote. There seems, to my mind, no reason why the vote should be scheduled to begin after a day; motions can often spur further discussion and I think it would be regrettable for that to be curtailed when it would remain wholly possible for the vote to begin later but still conclude before the expiry of the present term.
 
Siwale:
Fun fact:
We've done this re-appointment vote four times prior. All of which had a shorter period of time between the start of debate and voting. (Reappointment 1, Reappointment 2, Reappointment 3, Reappointment 4)

As always, I remain open for questions throughout the voting process.
Click to expand...
Then it is a good thing my objection was not on the basis of the time between the start of the debate and the vote, but on the time between the scheduling and starting of the vote.
 
For reference, the above reappointments average time between scheduling and start of vote were 1.25 days.
 
Last edited:
Dreadton:
Do the nominees have any concerns about existing election law or procedures, or any suggestions for modifications that would improve their ability to perform their duties?
Click to expand...
I would say we should probably move to ranked-choice voting for judicial elections. The legislative language for it would be a bit tricky, but the process would be simple enough. Just run it like a single-winner election, then remove the winner from the rankings, add back all the losers, and run it again. Repeat and you have the three most-preferred candidates.

My other goal is less to do with law or procedure exactly, but I think we should flesh out the current election templates into more of a guidebook/manual for new commissioners, and include best practices, and common pitfalls (such as forgetting to turn off replies to the mass-pm). I also think the commission should define a clear process for updating the templates. My preferred process would be for the CEC to discuss specific changes with the commission and as long as there are no objections, make the changes without a vote. The templates aren't legally binding on the supervisors, technically speaking, so I don't think it's super important for changes to them to follow a democratic process like the election commission procedures. However, since they are heavily relied on by supervisors, it's important to keep them current. So far we've been following a bit of an ad hoc process, and I think we ought to clean it up a bit.

bootsie:
My question is for @Crushing Our Enemies. Will your activity improve over the next term, or do you foresee circumstances that will keep you from being more active?
Click to expand...
Yes, my activity will improve, and already has (albeit incrementally). I fully expect to be able to supervise the January general election, provided my re-nomination is approved.

Zyvetskistaahn:
On the question of activity, do the prospective (and present) Commissioners have any view on whether it would be worthwhile to allow a Commissioner to declare themselves absent and thereby be deemed absent for the purposes of an election? I appreciate that there is presently provision that allows a Commissioner who is unwilling to supervise an election not to do so, I am thinking more about the broader role of Commissioners in overseeing the Commissioners supervising an election.
Click to expand...
It's important to have enough non-absent commissioners to be able to overrule the supervisors if they make a bad mistake and then stick to their guns when a petition is made. That means at least three - which is why there must be a minimum of five non-absent commissioners for any given election, including the two supervisors. It also takes three commissioners to halt an election while a petition is being considered. So, if a commissioner is so inactive to be unable to read a petition and vote their conscience, it's problematic for them to be non-absent. For that reason, I considered whether I should resign from the commission before the November election, but decided that since I was returning from my honeymoon on November 1, I would be reachable if a petition was filed.

So to your question, if a commissioner expects themselves to be entirely without internet access, or is taking an extended break from NS for one reason or another, during an election, I could see the value of some sort of "leave of absence" system. However, it would require legal code changes as well as changes to the EC procedures, and would probably result in a somewhat clumsy and inelegant solution to the problem. Honestly, it would be better to perhaps just raise the minimum number of commissioners to six or seven, with the reasonable expectation that that won't happen to enough of them at once to ever cause a problem.
 
The motion to vote and the second is acknowledged. A vote will be scheduled to begin in about 36 hours.
 
Given that my term is up on the 25th, and these votes tend to be near unanimous, could I petition the speaker to shorten the vote to three days instead of four, so that my term will not expire before the completion of the vote?

Length of consecutive tenure on the commission does have meaningful implications in the workings of the EC. I also confess that it is a point of personal pride for me that my tenure has been unbroken since the commission's inception.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Given that my term is up on the 25th, and these votes tend to be near unanimous, could I petition the speaker to shorten the vote to three days instead of four, so that my term will not expire before the completion of the vote?

Length of consecutive tenure on the commission does have meaningful implications in the workings of the EC. I also confess that it is a point of personal pride for me that my tenure has been unbroken since the commission's inception.
Click to expand...
Given this request, and the current status of the vote, I have decided to shorten the vote to 3 days. This will be reflected in the voting thread.
 
Gorundu:
Given this request, and the current status of the vote, I have decided to shorten the vote to 3 days. This will be reflected in the voting thread.
Click to expand...
I wasn't aware the Speaker had the ability to shorten a vote while it was occurring.

Might I refer you to the Regional Assembly Rules which state:

3. The Speaker will, at the beginning of a vote of the Regional Assembly, decide its duration as permitted by law.

I find nowhere in the law where it permits the Speaker to shorten the voting period—only extend the voting period. Could you please direct me to the relevant law and clause?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top