UNDER DEBATE: Election Streamlining (Amendment) Bill

r3naissanc3r

TNPer
-
-
Election Streamlining (Amendment) Bill

1. Article 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. The Speaker is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker by a plurality vote whenever the position is vacant.

2. Article 3, Clause 8 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
8. Whenever the position of Delegate is vacant, the Vice Delegate will assume the powers of the office of the Delegate until a new Delegate is elected. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the powers of the office of the Delegate.

3. Article 3, Clause 9 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
9. The Delegate is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Delegate by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant. No person may serve as Delegate for more than 240 consecutive days.

4. The following is inserted to Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific,
10. The Vice Delegate is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Vice Delegate by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant.

5. Article 4, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. A Justice is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Justice by a plurality vote whenever a Justice position is vacant.

6. Article 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations and throughout the election.

7. Article 6, Clause 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices on an interim basis for the duration of elections may be established by law.

8. Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Clause 2 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect an Attorney General by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant.

9. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. "Candidates" are those Regional Assembly members who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Regional Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

10. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to commission a given election. An Election Commissioner may not be a candidate in an election they commission.

11. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Pending an election, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.

12. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
9. Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made within 48 hours of the election becoming necessary, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment.
10. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
11. Voting will begin immediately after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for five days.
12. If a run-off vote is required it will begin immediately after the first vote ends and it shall last for five days.

13. Chapter 4, Section 4.4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.4: Elections for Delegate and Vice Delegate
13. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council.

14. Chapter 4, Section 4.5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.5: Judicial Elections
14. Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall select a Chief Justice from among themselves. Justices may remove the Chief Justice by a majority vote.

15. Chapter 4, Section 4.6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is repealed.

16. Holders of elected offices at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be subject to the provisions amended by this law. For the purposes of the provisions amended by this law, they will be deemed to have served in their respective offices for the number of days that have elapsed since the conclusion of the last election in which they were elected.

17. No provision of this law will take effect unless every provision of this law takes effect.
 
I provide below a version of the bill with annotated changes, as well as inline comments in italics explaining the changes.

Election Streamlining (Amendment) Bill

N.B. Constitutional amendments start here.

1. Article 2, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker every four months by a plurality vote. 5. The Speaker is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Speaker by a plurality vote whenever the position is vacant.

N.B. This wording is used throughout. It means that whenever there is a vacancy, there is a new election. A vacancy may be either because of resignation, removal, etc., or because the term for that office expired.

2. Article 3, Clause 8 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
8. If the Delegate is removed or unable to serve Whenever the position of Delegate is vacant, the Vice Delegate will assume the duties of the Delegate powers of the office of the Delegate until a new Delegate is elected. If the Vice Delegate is also unable to serve, the first available person in the line of succession will assume the duties of powers of the office of the Delegate.

N.B. The original "removed or unable to serve" is changed to just "office is vacant". Vacancy is defined in detail in the Legal Code 4.2.8. Furthermore, the intent of the new wording is to make it explicit that the VD or whoever is in the succession line only has the powers of Delegate temporarily, until an election can be held.

3. Article 3, Clause 9 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
9. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a majority vote every four months. The Delegate is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Delegate by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant. No person may serve more than two consecutive terms as Delegate for more than 240 consecutive days.

4. The following is inserted to Article 3 of the Constitution of The North Pacific,
10. The Vice Delegate is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Vice Delegate by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant.

N.B. Delegate and Vice Delegate election provisions have been split two clauses for clarity. Under the new system for elections, term limits are trivial to define.

5. Article 4, Clause 5 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. Justices will be elected by the Regional Assembly by a plurality vote every four months. A Justice is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Justice by a plurality vote whenever a Justice position is vacant.

6. Article 6, Clause 1 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
1. All government officials must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly. Candidates in any election must maintain membership in the Regional Assembly for the fifteen days before the opening of nominations and throughout the election.

N.B. Under the old wording, someone could be in the RA for 15 days before an election starts, then resign their membership and stand as candidate as simple citizens, and then resume their membership once they are elected, therefore also taking the position they won. The addition in green fixes that.

6. Article 6, Clause 6 of the Constitution of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
6. Procedures to fill vacancies in elected offices on an interim basis for the duration of elections may be established by law.

N.B. The addition in green is because now all vacancies result in new elections, and therefore only need to be filled in the interim.

N.B. Constitutional amendments end here. Legal Code amendments start here.

7. Chapter 3, Section 3.1, Clause 2 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
2. The Attorney General will be elected during Judicial Elections. 2. The Attorney General is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect an Attorney General by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant.

8. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
5. "Candidates" are those citizens Regional Assembly members who declare themselves, or have accepted a nomination by another Regional Assembly member preceding the close of nominations, as a candidate for an office to be chosen at that election. Candidates may only stand for one office during a given Election Cycle.

N.B. "Citizens" has been changed to "RA members". Even though it is already covered in the Constitution that only RA members may be candidates, the change to avoid any unforeseen problems. The second sentence, about only standing for one office, may need re-writing or removal, due to the fact that under the proposed system "syncing" of elections is not possible. Technically, though, it is functional when combined with the definition of "election cycle" below.

9. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
6. "Election Commissioner" is an individual designated to commission a given election. No one who may be a candidate in an election may serve as an Election Commissioner during it An Election Commissioner may not be a candidate in an election they commission.

N.B. The old wording appears to be saying that anyone eligible to be a candidate may not serve as EC. This practically excludes all RA members from serving as EC, unless they were accepted within 15 days of the election. The proposed change resolves this issue.

N.B. Note that the clause right after the above one in the Legal Code is:

"7. "Election Cycle" is defined as the period of time that begins on the first day on which nominations, or a declaration, of candidacy are made and concludes with the final declaration of results for an election. The dates for the Election Cycle will be designated at least 30 days in advance by the Delegate."

The last sentence may need changing if we want the election cycle to specify how election cycle is to start, say 25 days ahead of the end of the end of a full term.


10. Chapter 4, Section 4.2, Clause 7 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
8. A "vacancy" in an office occurs when the holder of it resigns, is removed, or abandons it . An office is abandoned when its holder does not log onto the regional forums for two weeks without prior notice, or when an election winner or appointee fails to post the Oath of Office. Vacancies of elected offices are filled through a special election unless a it cannot be completed prior to the beginning of the appropriate scheduled election cycle. Pending an election, however, a vacancy may be temporarily filled as provided by the Constitution, this Legal Code, or a rule adopted by the appropriate body. Vacancies of appointed positions may be filled in accordance with proper appointment procedures.

N.B. The deleted part is no longer applicable. For the last sentence, we could specify directly here that when an election is triggered by expiration of a term, the incumbent stays as an interim until the triggered election concludes.

11. Chapter 4, Section 4.3 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.3: Overall Election Law
9. In General and Judicial elections, Election Commissioners will be appointed by the Delegate to oversee the nomination and election processes at least one week before the month in which the election begins. If an appointment of Election Commissioners has not been made by that time within 48 hours of the election becoming necessary, the Chief Justice shall promptly make the appointment within 48 hours.
10. The period for nominations or declarations of candidacy shall last for seven days.
11. Voting will begin three days immediately after the period for nominations or declarations has closed and last for seven five days.
12. If a run-off vote is required it will begin within two days of immediately after the first vote ending ends and it shall last for five days.

N.B. There are some adjustments to scheduling of elections, mostly aiming to shorten the electoral period.

12. Chapter 4, Section 4.4 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.4: General Elections for Delegate and Vice Delegate
13. The election cycle for the terms of the Delegate and Vice Delegate, and of the Speaker, will begin on the first day of the months of January, May, and September.
14 13. Non-incumbent candidates for Delegate or Vice Delegate may not obtain an endorsement level during the election cycle greater than the level authorized for members of the Security Council under Chapter 5.

13. Chapter 4, Section 4.5 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is amended to read as follows,
Section 4.5: Judicial Elections
15. The election cycle for the terms of Justices, and the Attorney General will begin on the first days of the months of March, July, and November.
16 14 Whenever the position is vacant, the Justices shall select a Chief Justice from among themselves by a majority vote. Justices may remove the Chief Justice by a majority vote.
17. In the event that seven days after the conclusion of a Judicial election, including the conclusion of any required run-off votes, a Chief Justice has not been elected, the Justice that received the highest number of votes in said election, and in the event of a tie for highest number of votes the Justice among those tied with the largest amount of elapsed time since that Justice's most recent admission to the Regional Assembly without an interruption, shall become Chief Justice.

N.B. The old clause for what happens when the Justices cannot elect a CJ can no longer be used. The current draft does not provide a fail-safe clause, and assumes that the Justices will always elect a CJ. However, suggestions for a new fail-safe clause are welcome.

14. Chapter 4, Section 4.6 of the Codified Law of The North Pacific is repealed.

N.B. This is the "Special Elections" section, which is now redundant.

N.B. Legal Code amendments end here. Special provisions start here.

15. Holders of elected offices at the time of the enactment of this legislation will be subject to the provisions amended by this law. For the purposes of the provisions amended by this law, they will be deemed to have served in their respective offices for the number of days that have elapsed since the conclusion of the last election in which they were elected.

N.B. The effect of this is that, for current incumbents, the new provisions will apply as soon as their regular terms expire, or as soon as they resign. The exception of this rule is Jamie, whose partial Delegate term is expanded to be a full, 4-month term. If there are strong objections to this, this can be edited to have an election triggered as it would under the old system in May. Also, it may be preferable to specify what happens with those under restrictions for term limits (currently only Eluvatar).

16. No provision of this law will take effect unless every provision of this law takes effect.


This is a comprehensive bill that changes, to different extents, almost all of the election-related clauses in our statute. Firstly, I would like to thank Crushing Our Enemies for his input on this and comments on the draft.

The main effect of this bill is that it abolishes special elections and fixed "election cycles". Instead, every elected officer is elected for a specific number of days (term lengths are approximately preserved, i.e., 120 days). If an officer resigns or is removed before the end of their term, then an election for a new, full term is triggered; that is, the person elected will serve a full 120-day term unless they also resign. Otherwise, if the officer does not resign mid-term, an election will be triggered at the end of their 120 days in office, whenever that may be.

The reason for this change is twofold:
  • simplify our electoral legislation; and
  • reduce the number of elections per office.

For the first point, you need only look at the large number of proposals that have appeared in the Regional Assembly recently, changing one or another aspect of our electoral/succession law. The majority of our issues are caused by our insistence on maintaining a fixed election schedule through legislating for special elections. By eliminating those, our electoral legislation is made both considerably shorter and much more straightforward. Note that this bill subsumes both the Delegate Succession Bill and Delegate Term Limits Bill that are currently at vote, by addressing the issues they were introduced to resolve, though not necessarily in the same way as they do.

The second point is, I believe, self-evident. Consider the number of partial terms we have had since the adoption of the current version of the Constitution. When it comes to Delegates, Mcmasterdonia was forced to seek reelection a couple of months after he was elected in November's special election. Jamie will serve for less than a month, and that is after the region has been left without a Delegate for about a month. If we look at Vice Delegates, the same thing occurred late last year, with Blue Wolf serving for less than a month before seeking (and achieving) reelection, after the region had been left without a Vice Delegate for a month. The examples continue, with Sanctaria's election as Justice for I believe less than three weeks last February.

Beyond the impractical number of elections, more severely the system of special elections results in extended periods of each office being unoccupied, or having occupants contesting elections instead of actually running their offices. This is grossly inefficient, and harmful to the governance of our region. In the cases of the offices of Delegate and Vice Delegate, the very frequent transitions that special elections can result in pose risks to the security of the region. My proposed change addresses this serious shortcomings by eliminating their systemic root, the system of special elections.

The removal of special elections and fixed terms has another effect. We can no longer synchronize elections for multiple seats to take place together. As a consequence, down the line and after a few resignations have occurred, elections for Delegate, Vice Delegate, and Speaker will be held separately. Similarly, the three Justices will each be elected at separate elections, and the Attorney General will be elected separately from the Justices.

In the case of Justices, I view this as a desirable change, as it ensures some continuity in the Court; this is desirable both for efficiency and effectiveness reasons. With regards to the other offices, it will have the consequence of contributing to an increase of the total number of elections. However, this increase will be countered, I believe, by the decrease in the total number of elections elections due to the elimination of special elections. And, at the same time, the number of elections per office will be decreased.

One disadvantage, and the only one I can identify, of the proposed change is that we will be required to keep track of when the next election for each office is due. However, I have observed this maintenance requirement being easily tackled in plenty of other regions, and I am sure we will have no problem seeing to it here in The North Pacific either.

Finally, the bill makes changes to a number of other clauses pertaining to elections. Most of them are trivial, correcting issues of imprecise or incorrect formulation. The most important would be the changes to electoral scheduling, where the interim between the end of nominations and the beginning of voting has been eliminated, as has the interim between an election and a runoff; and also voting has been shortened to five days.

As a closing note, because of the length of the bill, I would please ask that members take some time to go through it in detail. The inline notes I have left in the annotated version should explain the intent of every change in the amendment list. I am happy to take questions or suggestions on any of these changes.
 
After reading it through once, I support the majority of the amendments. My one concern is that I'm not sure how I feel about my term being extended - but I'd be glad to hear other people's views on that before making a final opinion on that.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
If you don't want your term to be extended, you could simply resign when it came time.
I'm not sure we want more elections. It's just that not all of us who run in special elections run with the intent to serve out a full term - that is, 4 months.
 
Well, your situation is a special case, since it would straddle the passage of this bill, but consider that after it passes, there will be no such thing as a special election, and running for a term less than four months will be a thing of the past. Personally, I think that makes a lot more sense.
 
I have no major problems with this bill, though the counter starting from the time the election is won, rather than from the time the Oath is posted (which is where the law currently says your term starts) could do with some clarification one way or another. Currently, the only way a person would actually *serve* their 120 days or whatever, would be if they post their oath the same day as they win the election (which mostly happens, but not always). Also, I think some clarification that deputies end their appointments when the person who appointed them ends their term would be good.

The only other note I have is that the wording of "removed" which is consistent throughout, is dangerously close to the legal term of art for what happens when we have a recall. Perhaps replace it with "shall conclude their term" or phrase it ins uch a way that it says "After 120 days, an election cycle for the position will commence." Removed implies that, on the 120th day, you're out, regardless of if there's a replacement ready or not.

Lastly, let's define days. Let's use GMT or UTC, but let's fucking define it, so we don't have bickering about "Oh but I took my oath at 17:53 so I have almost 18 more hours in office". Define a day as "a full day or any portion thereof, as measured by GMT"
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Well, your situation is a special case, since it would straddle the passage of this bill, but consider that after it passes, there will be no such thing as a special election, and running for a term less than four months will be a thing of the past. Personally, I think that makes a lot more sense.
Fair point. I'll retract my reservations and give this bill my full support.
 
We're ignoring the value of a predictable election schedule, I think. Couldn't our issues with the amount of time we spend on elections be addressed by shortening them? Couldn't we also change the cutoff for when the law considers it "too late" to hold a special election?
 
Eluvatar:
We're ignoring the value of a predictable election schedule, I think. Couldn't our issues with the amount of time we spend on elections be addressed by shortening them? Couldn't we also change the cutoff for when the law considers it "too late" to hold a special election?
:agree:
 
Eluvatar:
We're ignoring the value of a predictable election schedule, I think. Couldn't our issues with the amount of time we spend on elections be addressed by shortening them? Couldn't we also change the cutoff for when the law considers it "too late" to hold a special election?
I agree as well. I think changing this will complicate things more rather than simplify. I also don't believe it addressed the issues behind having so many elections.
 
I apologize for the complete lack of responses from me here. I was travelling immediately after I submitted this bill, then got caught up with RL.

Given that I will remain busy until May 14th (I asked for a LoA for this period of time), I would ask that this bill be put on hold (i.e., not moved to a vote) until then. I will address all comments then, make the changes recommended, and hopefully have debate on this bill resume.

Also, this will mean that the bill should only pass after the forthcoming election concludes, meaning that we will no longer be required to make a, potentially controversial, decision on whether to expand Jamie's term to a full term.
 
I quickly glanced at this, and one problem I see is that not only is there no fixed election cycle, there could easily be 7 different election cycles overlapping each other at a minimum even if full terms are served and no mid-term vacancies arise. Those cycles could differ by a day, a week, a month, or several months. Keeping track of them will be burdensome, because no one will have the authority to keep everything on track.
It may seem simpler, but it really isn't.
Y'all really need to look how this is going to work in each branch of government (the judiciary is going to be a real problem with 4 overlapping cycles).
This is a fly-by post; "don't know when I'll be back again" (quick -- name the song that lyric comes from.) >|P
 
Grosseschnauzer:
I quickly glanced at this, and one problem I see is that not only is there no fixed election cycle, there could easily be 7 different election cycles overlapping each other at a minimum even if full terms are served and no mid-term vacancies arise. Those cycles could differ by a day, a week, a month, or several months. Keeping track of them will be burdensome, because no one will have the authority to keep everything on track.
It may seem simpler, but it really isn't.
Y'all really need to look how this is going to work in each branch of government (the judiciary is going to be a real problem with 4 overlapping cycles).
This is a fly-by post; "don't know when I'll be back again" (quick -- name the song that lyric comes from.) >|P
Leaving On A Jet Plane

*[me] bids Grosseschnauzer bon voyage*

Also I agree with your points here.
 
I don't support this bill, as I prefer having as Eluvatar said the predictable set election cycle.

Special elections can be annoying, and I think that both Special Elections and General elections take too long. I'd prefer that we cut down on the time required for voting and nominating candidates, rather than resorting to this. I know this bill has been put on hold, but Chasmanthe's comment brought my attention to this once more and thought I'd share my thoughts.
 
I thought the point of having a deputy was that they would act-up as minister should one resign. Excuse my ignorance, but is there a good reason for that not being the case?
 
Well, first off, ministers aren't the problem, cause they're un-elected. However, to answer your question, the reason they don't is that deputy ministers aren't mentioned anywhere in the constitution or legal code; they're just something we kinda made up, and don't have any official power. That being said, there's nothing stopping the delegate, when a minister disappears/resigns, from appointing their deputy in their place.

With regard to Grosse's complaints about it being difficult to keep track of election cycles, that's why I think the delegate should appoint an executive officer to be in charge of elections, and also serve as election commissioner in all of them. That would basically be their only job: to keep track of the election calendar.

Also, with regard to the court, this would actually make transitions way better. Lately, we've been having a lot of problems around the end of a court term and the beginning of the next. We hear of a lot of "let's leave this to the next court." This proposal would fix that, cause justices wouldn't all be elected at once. We'd get way more continuity from one "term" to the next.
 
So the real issue would be the court election cycle, I suppose. However I agree that having a staggered approach may provide some continuity to the courts.

I am not convinced that irregular elections will work administratively.
 
It would be easy. All the Minister of Elections would need to do is a keep a little list of when everyone got elected, and count 120 days ahead: that's the day their successor takes office. Count 17 days back (22 for elections with the possibility of a runoff) and that's the first day of the election cycle.

EDIT: Correction, that's the latest possible day the election cycle could begin. Nothing saying you can't have someone win an election a few days before they take office, after all.
 
I'm not saying it doesn't sound great on paper, but would we be able to field a regular enough number of voters to ensure this happens democratically?

If I can be persuaded of that, then I have no objections to the proposals
 
I mean, we've already got elections every month practically. I don't think we'd have terribly many more elections than we do now.

Also, as of this post, 84% of the Regional Assembly has logged in in the past week. (6 out of the 13 who HAVEN'T logged in in the past week will be removed next vote if they don't vote...) Also, this was finals week or close to it for a lot of our college-age members, so activity is down a bit from a typical week. So there's definitely the potential for all the elections to be democratic, so long as those who log in care enough to vote...and if they don't care, then they aren't exactly the kind of people we want voting anyway. That's how Gov got elected to the Executive Council that one time.
 
I really like the changes this bill makes. I think they will simplify and streamline the electoral process and remove a great deal of headache from the law.

A thought, though. If justices are elected at different times, why not simply declare that the longest serving justice is CJ? Takes some of the headache out of the justices regularly needing to figure out who's in charge.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
It would be easy. All the Minister of Elections would need to do is a keep a little list of when everyone got elected, and count 120 days ahead: that's the day their successor takes office. Count 17 days back (22 for elections with the possibility of a runoff) and that's the first day of the election cycle.

EDIT: Correction, that's the latest possible day the election cycle could begin. Nothing saying you can't have someone win an election a few days before they take office, after all.

If one has a rule that terms must be exactly 120 days, then one would have to start 24 days back to leave room for a runoff. And technically we don't guarantee just one runoff: if the runoff results in a tie, I think we have to do another one. (Theoretically potentially ad infinitum).
 
Actually, other provisions of the bill shorten the election cycle, so it would only be 12 days, or 17 to allow for a runoff. Although, your point about ties could theoretically throw a wrench in things.
 
Implement an official coin-flipping procedure to be followed in the case of a tie? FriarTuck could be a neutral, unbiased arbiter and host of a complicated coin-flipping algorithm programmed to calculate exactly the correct flip to ensure an ideal future, and then do exactly the opposite.

Or is that not sufficiently Eluvian?
 
As I've said elsewhere, the extent of power the term "oversee" gives the EC is at the hear of the controversy around the recent elections. I think we should address that here.

To me, the term oversee suggests very limited power, little more than watching for people trying to cheat. However, the tradition and intent appears to be more that the EC manages the election.

With regards to declaring candidacy, there should either be an explicit legal requirement, or an individual or group should be empowered to set that requirement, within a framework of protections (the equal protection clause in the Bill of Rights largely covers this). Clearly the two extremes are not viable - any statement of intent anywhere is just asking for situations where statements in obscure places are missed and whole elections are invalidated, but allowing a body total control of the requirements is asking for abuses to occur where the rules are set to prevent certain people from running.
 
There is no way to claim that the Election Commission can set eligibility requirements. It can't.

The Election Commission has agreed that any and all protocols it administers must be explicitly stated.

I don't think there's any way to deliberately keep someone off the ballot given that...
 
9. The Delegate is removed after having served for 120 consecutive days. The Regional Assembly will elect a Delegate by a majority vote whenever the position is vacant. No person may serve as Delegate for more than 240 consecutive days.

Apologies if someone has stated this previously. But let's say delegate has won the past two elections and the third 120 day election is coming up.

Can the 2 time delegate resign on day 235 within the new rules and then run for election for the term that is about to be elected? Let's say the election cycle for that term begins at day 210, could the then sitting delegate resign on day 209 in order to break the consecutive day rule, but run as a candidate? And upon further reflection if the delegate is "removed" after serving 120 days, on day 121 if the elections aren't over who is the delegate? Would it be the VD per the proposed changes on day 121?

The proposed changes seem to make that a possibility.

I also like predictive timeframes for elections versus the 120 day cycle. I suspect election cycles would become staggered given vacancies.
 
@Eluvator: How exactly do we define eligibility requirements though? There is a difference between requiring that a candidate posses certain inherent qualities and requiring that all candidates comply with an election protocol.

The EC and Court both seem happy to require that candidates post in a specific threat in making their intent to run known. This seems reasonable if the requirement is known ahead of time to all potential candidates, but I understand the alternate interpretation that the law legally requires that anyone who states an intent to run be included on the ballot.

@punk d: I agree with your concern, under the current wording someone could resign for a day to avoid the term limit.

Also, the current version states that after 120 days, the Delegate is removed and an election is held "whenever the position is vacant." Thus, as an election takes a finite amount of time, no one would ever serve more than 120 consecutive days - the election would put a break in the middle of a 2 term delegate's time in the office.

It would be better to state that no person may serve more than 2 consecutive terms - this addresses both issues. We might also want to add that after serving 2 terms, a certain amount of time must pass before the clock is reset. i can envisage a scenario where someone serves two terms, gets an accomplice elected to replace them, and then the accomplice immediately resigns, making the original Delegate eligible to run again.
 
Eluvatar, how would the Election Commissioners handle the case of an individual who wished to run for office, but had been placed on a posting ban during the period in which nominations are open?

I think it is important that the constitutional guidelines as well as the ECs' own policies be able to accommodate special circumstances, such as the one I described, that potential nominees might find themselves in.
 
In such a special circumstance, special alterations to the protocol would have to be made to comply with the bill of rights, yes.

I must say I am not a fan of getting rid of scheduled elections.
 
It's worthy of note that nothing in the current Constitution or Bill of Rights requires that the Delegate is elected, or how candidates in elections are determined. The equal protection clause would make any law that unfairly affected one nation over another unconstitutional, but that leaves a lot of flexibility.

I think the current draft we have here is a move in the right direction, but it needs work. I've always been a fan of a regular election timetable - in the past I've worked on systems where the week that each election occurs is codified (e.g., the Delegate is elected during the first week of the months of January, April, July, and October). Limiting to a week gives some flexibility for unexpected circumstances, but makes it easy for everyone to know when the election will be. I'm not sure if that's right here, but it's wort considering.

The complication with a regular schedule is accounting for people leaving or being removed from Office. A combination of lines of succession and special elections for partial terms becomes a necessity, which causes ugliness and potential confusion in its own right.
 
With the 120-day cycles, we want to avoid a scenario where elections could fall over the Christmas holidays. The last time that happened something like 8 people voted and we got Lewis & Clark. and Gatesville.

Among the what-ifs the EC should visit is the whole "withdrawing the nomination" can of worms. It could come up again and cause trouble.
 
Great Bights Mum:
With the 120-day cycles, we want to avoid a scenario where elections could fall over the Christmas holidays. The last time that happened something like 8 people voted and we got Lewis & Clark. and Gatesville.

Among the what-ifs the EC should visit is the whole "withdrawing the nomination" can of worms. It could come up again and cause trouble.
Withdrawing a nomination is not a big deal. If a candidate accepts a nomination and then the nomination is withdrawn, that still functions as a candidacy, as they became a candidate when they accepted the nomination. It's fine to withdraw nominations that have not been accepted.

I was only withdrawing nominations when they were ignored by the nominees.

You can't withdraw a nomination that has been accepted or declined. Or if you do, it will have no effect anyway. It's their accepting or declining that matters, the nominating is merely nominal.
 
Nominations are fairly pointless at present anyway. Seen as candidates don't require a nomination to run, and nominees don't become candidates until they accept (essentially, declare) they're really nothing more than a public statement that you'd like somebody to run.
 
Back
Top