Electoral Reform

mr_sniffles

mr_sniffles

TNPer
We all saw the confusion that came out of the last election, confusion and trouble that we can ill afford to happen again. I've seen several drafts by others but with the election coming up I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

Proposed addition to the Legal Code:

Election Law:
TNP Law
Election Law

Section 1
1) The Delegate must select one or more Election Commissioners to oversee the nomination and election processes, one week before the Election cycle begins.
2) The Election Commissioner must not run for any position during the election.

Section 2
1) The first week of the election cycle will be for nominating candidates.
2) Candidates must have two nominations to be added to the ballot.
3) Candidates may only run for one position at a time.
4) Three days after nominations end, voting will begin.
5) Voting will last seven days.

Section 3
1) Campaigns will refrain from spreading falsehoods against opponents or face removal from ballot.
2) Candidates for Delegate and Vice Delegate may not begin seeking endorsements during the election cycle.
Click to expand...

Go ahead and tear it apart!
 
mr_sniffles:
We all saw the confusion that came out of the last election, confusion and trouble that we can ill afford to happen again. I've seen several drafts by others but with the election coming up I'm throwing my hat in the ring.

Proposed addition to the Legal Code:

Election Law:
TNP Law
Election Law

Section 1
1) The Delegate must select one or more Election Commissioners to oversee the nomination and election processes, one week before the Election cycle begins.
2) The Election Commissioner must not run for any position during the election.
Click to expand...
Sounds good so far...
Section 2
1) The first week of the election cycle will be for nominating candidates.
2) Candidates must have two nominations to be added to the ballot.
3) Candidates may only run for one position at a time.
4) Three days after nominations end, voting will begin.
5) Voting will last seven days.
Click to expand...
Also good, particularly the clarification in part 3, as last time I hadn't a clue whether this was allowed or not.

Section 3
1) Campaigns will begin after one has received two nominations.
2) Campaigns will refrain from spreading falsehoods against opponents.
3) Candidates for Delegate and Vice Delegate may not begin seeking endorsements during the election cycle.
Click to expand...
Hmm...I'd lose part 2 here, it's not an after-school special, we're all big boys (or girls) here. Also part 1 is confusing; you can't even campaign until you get the nominations? Buh? Seems more sensible that you would campaign to get the nominations and subsequent votes. Get rid of that bit too. Other than that, a lot clearer than what we've got now.
Click to expand...
 
I have a problem with clause 1 of section 3. If people want to run whether others nominate them or not, they should be able to do so.

Clause 2 of section 3 is uneforceableable, and useless. And it could be argued that it's in violation of the Bill of Rights guarantee of freedom of speech.

And then there's the issue of a tie. The so-called IRV proposal that was tried in the Azure Senate election proved impossible to clearly explain in its application, and I'd rather have a clear-cut up and down runoff. (Many voters choose not to rank all of the candidates, which made understanding how it works even more difficult.) I still am not convinced that it is fair or equitable.

And it's funny how within a couple of hours after I indicate I'm prepate to introduce legislation on a topic, alll of a sudden people are jumping. Or its just coincidence, no? :o
 
Grosseschnauzer:
And it's funny how within a couple of hours after I indicate I'm prepate to introduce legislation on a topic, alll of a sudden people are jumping. Or its just coincidence, no?  :o
Click to expand...
Elu and I have been discussing Electoral Reform since the last election. Believe it or not, not everything is a massive conspiracy against you. So leave for the oven for instead of the hats.
 
Girls, girls, girls! Put the handbags away - it's not the TNP way.

Although the schnauzerman does have a point - the nomination aspect does seem pretty redundant when you think about it. Some sort of codified run-off system would be a good idea too.
 
I find it interesting that the Speaker outs a bill on the table, asks for comments and criticisms, and then moves it to a vote even though both Sydia and I pointed out weaknesses in this proposal.

The Speaker seems to have moved to a view that only he knows what is best for the region, and is assuming some of the flavor of a dictator.

Since the Speaker insists on moving defective legislation drafted by him to the floor without fixing the defects before a vote takes place, I have no choice but to vote NAY on this defective bill.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
The Speaker seems to have moved to a view that only he knows what is best for the region, and is assuming some of the flavor of a dictator.
Click to expand...

If that were true, you wouldn't be allowed to say that.

But I digress, it's my proposal and I get to decide which changes I'll accept. If it fails, it fails. It's merely an idea. And even better if it fails, then you can introduce your own long awaited proposal as the sensible solution.
 
Sydia:
In that case, why even bother having a preliminary discussion?
Click to expand...
First off to sound off on which alterations I feel is needed. I accepted some of your criticisms of Section 3 and rewrote part 1. I'm sorry I didn't accept all your proposed changes but it's my proposal, if you want to authour an electoral reform bill with everything you want in it. Easy, write your own.
 
mr_sniffles:
Sydia:
In that case, why even bother having a preliminary discussion?
Click to expand...
First off to sound off on which alterations I feel is needed. I accepted some of your criticisms of Section 3 and rewrote part 1. I'm sorry I didn't accept all your proposed changes but it's my proposal, if you want to authour an electoral reform bill with everything you want in it. Easy, write your own.
Click to expand...
:eyebrow:

"If you don't like it, write your own," doesn't seem to be a particularly constructive method of legislating. I thought the whole point of the RA and preliminary discussions was to construct bills commonly agreed upon as necessary and well worded (and then, because we're democratic like that, put it to vote). Of course, it is your prerogative not to include suggestions, but a little feedback as to why would be helpful.
 
You know I have the greatest respect for you Syd because your comments are not only usually right but funny too.

I think it's funny when I altered my proposal on Amendment Procedures I was called weak willed and while lobbying for the passage of the SC, all I heard were complaints about this supermajority. Now I'm being called a dictator.

Now is it that I'm a weak willed dictator or do I really believe that our election debate should be moderated just like RL debates? Especially with the level of accusations that have been leveled this past term, starting from the election to now. If you can't justify your arguments against a candidate and not back it up, it should not be a matter of public record and the overseers of the election such as the EC should be the best judge of that.

Now I'm sorry we don't agree on everything but this both common and natural in almost every proposal, was Grosse being dictatorial when he didn't allow the impeachment/recall decision to included into his SC? Or the mechanism for altering Treaties? No he called for a separate proposal.
 
mr_sniffles:
You know I have the greatest respect for you Syd because your comments are not only usually right but funny too.

I think it's funny when I altered my proposal on Amendment Procedures I was called weak willed and while lobbying for the passage of the SC, all I heard were complaints about this supermajority. Now I'm being called a dictator.

Now is it that I'm a weak willed dictator or do I really believe that our election debate should be moderated just like RL debates? Especially with the level of accusations that have been leveled this past term, starting from the election to now. If you can't justify your arguments against a candidate and not back it up, it should not be a matter of public record and the overseers of the election such as the EC should be the best judge of that.

Now I'm sorry we don't agree on everything but this both common and natural in almost every proposal, was Grosse being dictatorial when he didn't allow the impeachment/recall decision to included into his SC? Or the mechanism for altering Treaties? No he called for a separate proposal.
Click to expand...
First off, thank you, that means a lot.

Secondly; I think you're reading too much into things.
Do I think you are weak-willed? No. Do I think you are being dictatorial? No. Gross may think otherwise on this, but it's obvious to me that you two have some kind of prior beef which I hope you'll resolve and we can all have a group hug. Would I like to see more discussion on proposals? Yes. This one was brought to vote pretty quickly as far as I can see, and although suggestions were incorporated into the proposal there was no dialogue on other points and why they were not valid.
 
Edit: The name calling did indeed cease :P

Eh..Since I can't vote on this I do want to say it sounds fairly good. Obviously this is the Speaker's bill, and if he wishes he can as Speaker move it to a vote when he desires, and as the bill's writer accept all changes, or deny all changes to his desire.

Also, can anybody tell me what rules there are regarding the Preliminary Discussion phase and then the Debate phase? How long they have to last etc?
 
HEM:
Edit: The name calling did indeed cease :P

Eh..Since I can't vote on this I do want to say it sounds fairly good. Obviously this is the Speaker's bill, and if he wishes he can as Speaker move it to a vote when he desires, and as the bill's writer accept all changes, or deny all changes to his desire.

Also, can anybody tell me what rules there are regarding the Preliminary Discussion phase and then the Debate phase? How long they have to last etc?
Click to expand...
Preliminary discussion usually lasts between a week to two weeks but there's no set time. It lasts until the author feels ready to move it to a vote and a slot in the weekly election cycle opens up.
 
mr_sniffles:
Preliminary discussion usually lasts between a week to two weeks but there's no set time. It lasts until the author feels ready to move it to a vote and a slot in the weekly election cycle opens up.
Click to expand...
I believe someone has to post a request to bring any discussed proposals to a vote. No time frame specified as Sniffles said.

I posted my version of what Election Commissioners should be responsible for. Hopefully you will consider adding some of it to this proposal.

1. Interested Candidates in government positions up for election must be verified of their eligibility within 7 days after posting their interest in running.

2. You are responsible for making and keeping election deadlines. Unless the constitution, RA or delegate specify otherwise...your deadlines and election procedures are binding and will be upheld by the government.

3. You are responsible for contacting the Speaker to ensure that the list of RA members or eligible voters is up to date prior to the beginning of election.

4. You may choose a subordinate or two to help with anything you need (other than actual vote counting).

5. You must enforce deadlines and make sure that members accepted into the RA past the beginning of the election cycle are not eligible to vote.

6. You are responsible for keeping the Voting booth account organized once you become a commissioner and prior to leaving. You do not have the authority to change the Password on the account. An admin will always check with the proper official prior to giving anyone access to this account.

7. Should your co commissioner go inactive...you are responsible for keeping deadlines and informing the current delegate in order to assign someone else to confirm the vote count.
Click to expand...

I am more inclined to not tamper with the election cylcle by including candidacy during the beginning of the cycle. Frankly...I lost a whole month and more due to the problems we had with our last election...I'd rather not take any more time away from any other future delegate.

Also, I am basically starting the campaign period 2 weeks prior to the cycle beginning. A week before that should be used to choose election commissioners.

___________________

On a side note....I was always under the impression that proposals are meant to be worked on and changed to include what majority of our citizens feel is important. This is why I was rather displeased when 2 people posted similar proposals....I believe it was Elu and Gross (correct me if I am wrong). I think we save much time when we work together to put fourth a proposal that has been revised and worked on for a good period of time. It is more likely to pass and we can move forward to the next discussion. Imagine if we had 4 or 5 proposals for the same item...yes...scary!!
 
Tres - You can set most if not all of your proposals as simple administrative policy (executive order) as the EC is under your purview. It'll mean it can be put into place immediately however if some Delegate down the line doesn't like, they can just reverse it.

As for matters pertaining to how the SC vote was held, I invite all complainants to an honest and frank discussion here.

I'll be the first to admit, I don't think I've done a good job selling this one. I've been distracted by other things but I still believe that if we can trust the Election Commissioners to tabulate votes and verify voter eligibility, they should also be entrusted with making sure the debate occurs in a respectful and justified manner. We have moderators for RL debates, we have moderators for this site, we have a moderate for RA debates, and we should have a moderator during elections also.
 
I am merely stating what the forum administration policy has been with respect to the election commissioner(s). Make of it what you will.
 
I agree with Grosse that the current Clause 1 (it was Clause 2 when he commented upon it) of Section 3 is unenforceable. Any comments made by a candidate trying to discredit their opponent is going to be one side of the story and it is their opponents responsibility to prove their comments wrong. I just think that Clause could lead to silly little court cases attempting to further discredit other candidates.

I would recommend its removal, I think we can use our heads and know that certain behaviour isn't welcome on this forum. If someone was attempting to spread falsities then it shouldn't be too hard for their argument to be picked apart. Plus it always gives election time a little more spice if they have some debate rather than just a checklist of overexaggerated promises.
 
Updated with offending passage removed:

TNP Law
Election Law

Section 1
1) The Delegate must select one or more Election Commissioners to oversee the nomination and election processes, one week before the Election cycle begins.
2) The Election Commissioner must not run for any position during the election.

Section 2
1) The first week of the election cycle will be for nominating candidates.
2) Candidates must have two nominations to be added to the ballot.
3) Candidates may only run for one position at a time.
4) Three days after nominations end, voting will begin.
5) Voting will last seven days.
Click to expand...
 
I previously stated ibjection to Section 2 Clause (2) which is contrary to the tradition in the TNP that favored declaration of candidacy by the candidate without regard to nomination by others.

As written, this clause would permit a forced candidacy if someone is nominated by two people, whether that person accepted the nomination or not.

In addition, this does not address the problem of what happens where there is a tir for the CLO, or a lack of a majority for Delegate or Vice Delegate.


Since this was put to a vote without any opportunity for prior discussion of a revised proposal, I'm being forced to vote NAY.
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I previously stated ibjection to Section 2 Clause (2) which is contrary to the tradition in the TNP that favored declaration of candidacy by the candidate without regard to nomination by others.

As written, this clause would permit a forced candidacy if someone is nominated by two people, whether that person accepted the nomination or not.

In addition, this does not address the problem of what happens where there is a tir for the CLO, or a lack of a majority for Delegate or Vice Delegate.


Since this was put to a vote without any opportunity for prior discussion of a revised proposal, I'm being forced to vote NAY.
Click to expand...
You`re getting forgetful Grosse, especially as TNP 5, Section 2D of the previous Legal Code specifically states:
D- Such declarations may be made during a seven day period starting 10 days prior to the designated voting period for the election cycle for the next term of office. Alternatively, any three Nations that are registered voters may nominate a Nation as a candidate for UN Delegate, UN Vice Delegate, Prime Minister, a specific elected Cabinet Minister, Speaker of the Regional Assembly or for a seat on the Security Council during a...
Click to expand...

As to people being "forced to run" that's just lunacy. Canadidates can simply reject the nominations and show no interest in running.

Frankly we're all just getting sick and tired of your vicious vitriol on how anything you do not disagree with is suddenly "against the traditions/spirit of the Constitution/just plain un-TNP/anti-democratic." Criticism is welcome and needed in a healthy democracy but to pin everything you disagree with as unpatriotic and an act of flag burning is not only tiresome but patently false. I've been a member of the North Pacific since the age of Magicality, I was fighting against Cathyy when you were writing long verbose diatribes ripping off the dialect of some forgotten Founding Father about where the hell the washroom was.

You can disagree but to tirelessly paint anything you don't like as anti-democratic, anti-North Pacific, and anti-puppies is not only counter-intuitive but quite simply beneath you. I hate to break it to you but you are not the walking, talking embodiment of the North Pacific. Nor am I, and sure as hell not anyone doing it to make a political point.
 
The previous election code and its procedures were adopted under the previous Constitution, and both were repealed in the adoption of the current Constitution because the supports of the current Constitution wanted a clean slate.

With a clean slate, the only things we can look at are the constitution, the bill of reights, and the legal code as it survived the repeal, and any subsequent additions and amendments. Secondly, self-declaration was expressly permitted under the old system, and there is no mention of it here.

The previous system expressly required the nominee to accept, which the current proposal does not.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top