Election Reform

Apologies, I've been to New Jersey and now all about Sweden visiting relatives.

Anyway, making additional edits to accommodate the points GBM has raised, which seem reasonable enough:

1. Elections will begin on the first day of any month for which they are scheduled.
2. Elections will begin with declarations of candidacy. Any persons who meet the requirements for office may declare their candidacy and begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
3. After seven days have passed no further persons may declare their candidacy and all current candidates may continue to campaign.
4. After another seven days a vote will be opened. The vote will be closed after seven days and the results promptly declared.
5. Offices requiring a majority for election will be elected by a two round instant run-off vote. Any ties in the second round will be broken in favor of the candidate who received the most votes in the first round. If the two candidates are also tied in the first round the tie as well as all other otherwise irresolvable ties will be broken in favor of the candidate who [What to put here?].
6. Seven days prior to the beginning of elections the Delegate will appoint at least two election commissioners. These commissioners will be responsible for administering the upcoming election and may not run for office in the election they administer.
Click to expand...

As you can see I am unsure of how to break irresolvable ties. It had WA endorsements before, but I don't like that because that could also tie. Suggestions welcome.

And it's him, Sniffles.
 
#5 in the list is just plain goofy.

It's so goofy it just might work.
 
You do realize Pragmia that on election day, you better be an election commissioner to make sure everyone knows how to vote and how to count the votes?
 
Yes, the same thought had already occurred to me, though so far it appears that people have readily grasped IRV, seeing as argument about it has been centered around other points of contention. Though, I of course cannot read people's minds.

There is still the issue of tiebreaking though, which would have to be addressed in any electoral system. Another possibility is to use people's forum member number, but I haven't any idea how people would feel about this.
 
I, for one, have not agreed to the so-called IRV system, and predict there will come a time where it backfires on the region if adopted.
 
The strength of the IRV system is that no ballot is discounted. Currently, if there are three candidates running for Delegate, all one needs to win is a mere 34% to win with an unacceptable 66% of votes thrown out.

It is this fact that I will put this up to a vote after the current voting cycle, ending on Aug the 2nd with the War Powers Act. I ask Pragmia put in any finishing touches and send me a copy of his final draft.
 
Ah yes, I was just about to get down to that. I suppose I will present this as the final draft. Can always be amended.

1. Elections will begin on the first day of any month for which they are scheduled.
2. Elections will begin with declarations of candidacy. Any persons who meet the requirements for office may declare their candidacy and begin to campaign for the appropriate office.
3. After seven days have passed no further persons may declare their candidacy and all current candidates may continue to campaign.
4. After another seven days a vote will be opened. The vote will be closed after seven days and the results promptly declared.
5. Offices requiring a majority for election will be elected by a two round instant runoff vote. Any ties in the second round will be broken in favor of the candidate who received the most votes in the first round. If the two candidates are also tied in the first round the tie as well as all other otherwise irresolvable ties will be broken in favor of the candidate with the lower forum member number.
6. Seven days prior to the beginning of elections the Delegate will appoint at least two election commissioners. These commissioners will be responsible for administering the upcoming election and may not run for office in the election they administer.
Click to expand...

I'd also like to ask right now that if you don't understand IRV then just vote against. I've had problems before when people have voted for proposals of mine without actually knowing what they're voting for only to end up confused later >_<
 
I'm having difficulty understanding some of the objections to this bill.

For instance, I think the CLO would have the ability to "put a stop" to the "action" of appointing an Election Commissioner as-is...
 
My assumption was that people were not comfortable, which of course really easy to adjust for. Of course, if there is some other major reason I would like people to say so such that we can come to some final, acceptable bill.
 
There have been several recent proposals (all of which have failed) that included provisions that, in my view, mis-stated the role of the CLO.
The CLO can't stop an appointment, for instance, all it can do is to delay it long enough to place a motion or other legislative action on an emergency basis.

As I've pointed out in the past, if the actual desire is a review body with stronger powers to act on an immediate basis, then we need to re-visit how the CLO is set up in the current constitution, and think about how we can organize a xlearer system for that function.

As to the Election bill, my objection is to the IRV; I'm not comfortable with it, I do have any confidence that it is as equitable a process for treating runoffs, because of the underlying assumption that the voter would know how that voter would vote in a runoff scenario before knowing who is in a runoff, and their relative levels of support among the voters, as well as any issues that might present themselves between the runoff candidates. I think the IRV system does not even address that sort of common scenario in run-off situations.

I'm not sure why the others voted against the bill, so those RA members will have to state what their concerns are. I've stated mine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top