UNDER DEBATE: Election Streamlining (Amendment) Bill

Malashaan:
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.
Click to expand...
Agreed. It's just theater, which is stupid. You want to run, sign on the dotted line. You don't want to run, don't sign. Much simpler. Hell, I'd go further - if you want to run, make a thread in the election subforum. It's really not that hard for the ECs to look at one subforum and say "Hmm, every thread in here equals one candidate." I dunno, I just think there's too much procedure and bureaucratic bullshit in the way we do things like Elections - the less of that crap we have, the more efficiently and effectively our government can operate.
 
Gaspo is right. Yet I do like nominations when they serve as encouragement for someone to throw their hat into the ring. Sometimes people need a little nudge, or just the knowledge that they have some support out there. It's nice to know you're not completely crazy for going for it.
 
I think they're all well and good so long as that's their purpose. So, have a nomination thread as another option in addition to self-declaring through creating your campaign thread. The problem now is that the process is drowned in procedure, bureaucracy, and pedantic "NO YOU MUST POST HERE" bullshit.
 
We can have people posting publicly encouraging others to run without it being a formal part of the election law (i.e., a nomination).

Alternatively, there is little point in running if one can't get at least one other person to support one enough to get a nomination. I don't see a fundamental problem with requiring a non-self nomination for someone to run, although there would be a question of whether the Bill of Rights allows it.
 
Malashaan:
Alternatively, there is little point in running if one can't get at least one other person to support one enough to get a nomination.
Click to expand...
Little chance of winning, definitely, but that doesn't equate to little point in running at all - some people might want to run to get unpopular ideas out there, to get people talking about certain issues. They might not win, but the region is far healthier for them.

I'm in agreement with Gaspo on this. Nominations can be a nice symbolic gesture, but they're nothing more than that.
 
My thinking was that if you can't even get someone else to nominate you, then no one is going to care what you have to say. I can't see that ever actually happening in practice. However, I don't advocate that approach, I think anyone who wants to run should be able to, without a nomination.

My preferred approach is still to remove the concept of nominations from the formal process, making them something that people can state as a symbolic gesture if they wish, but that have no legal weight.
 
As this proposal was introduced under the old procedures, it will continue under them (a motion to vote and second from any members will prompt me to schedule a vote.) I will, however, entertain motions from the member who introduced the proposal to close this thread and allow them to open a new one under the new procedures (a motion to vote from the author triggers Formal Debate, lasting up to five days, after which it enters the queue, and must be seconded within two days for a vote to be scheduled.)
 
Just a quick thought, in regards to the consecutive days issue discussed on page two of this thread, perhaps if it was reworded to say that "consecutive days" actually means any period of time without a 120 day buffer between days in office, regardless of whether that's 120 days or the 240 two-term limit.

Or, you know what I mean, a less roundabout way of saying "unless there's been a 120 day buffer for you, we're counting your time as consecutive, so you can't bugger of for two weeks and then come back and think you have a fair go at another term."

Also, and forgive me, as I have been out of NS politics for a fair number of years now, but do we have multiple means set in place for contacting RA members to notify them of elections where their vote is required, or a warning system or whatever? Via pm, or email, or IM or text... I feel we'd have better results and presence for elections if RA members were notified in multiple ways. (Perhaps require them to subscribe to certain threads?) Anyway, just brainstorming. I like the RA update that I got via NS telegram from COE about the goings-on, but there's got to be a better way to send friendly reminders besides via NS telegrams or just this forum's PM system, unless they're set to be email notified when they get a new PM.
 
You have some great ideas, IndieGirl. I'm sure COE would agree that a more streamlined system for contacting RA members would be helpful.
 
IndieGirl:
Via pm, or email, or IM or text... I feel we'd have better results and presence for elections if RA members were notified in multiple ways.
Click to expand...
Ash:
You have some great ideas, IndieGirl. I'm sure COE would agree that a more streamlined system for contacting RA members would be helpful.
Click to expand...
John uppercrest:
I think a more streamlined system for contacting RA members would be a great idea.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, good idea.
 
As I said in COE's text message thread, I'm really not ok with it becoming even easier to completely tune out of TNP other than to show up and cast a vote. While RA membership does have incredibly low barriers, I would hope that as a body and as a region, we would expect a greater degree of participation and involvement than "get a text when it's time to vote, show up, vote, then fuck off again." I'm not sure making it even easier for people to "participate" in TNP in that way (sarcasm intended by quotes) is really best for the region, long-term. I'd love to see us have a conversation about that issue before we go and start doing anything.
 
I'm for anything that will keep IG around! :hug:

The TNP model isn't designed for a tight group of intense players. As Thel famously said, everyone has the right to play as they wish. That includes varying levels of activity as time and circumstances permit.

I see a bit of encouragement for those who may need it as an extension of a "Welcome Wagon" attitude.
 
Great Bights Mum:
I'm for anything that will keep IG around! :hug:

The TNP model isn't designed for a tight group of intense players. As Thel famously said, everyone has the right to play as they wish. That includes varying levels of activity as time and circumstances permit.

I see a bit of encouragement for those who may need it as an extension of a "Welcome Wagon" attitude.
Click to expand...
I think there's an important distinction to be drawn between "People who simply have less time to play" and "People who have plenty of time to play, but spend all of it somewhere else and only maintain citizenship/voting rights in TNP to try to swing crucial votes".

What I don't necessarily know is how to effectively distinguish between the two on a procedural level.
 
I think text messages are taking it a step too far from the current state. Personally, I feel that email would be the best way to accomplish this. And I think COE's newsletter format for TMs is perfect.

And I know all of us have weeks where we're more busy than others, and perhaps a TNP newsletter--whether it's for the RA or on a broader scope, for all forum members--via email every week, or bi-weekly, would be a way to encourage participation not just in voting, but across the board.

Instead of just saying hey, election's up, and having people "show up, vote, then fuck off again" perhaps an emailed forum newsletter highlighting the most active threads, or crazy IRC quotes or whatnot might be just the sort of thing we need to remind people that we're here, and that things are happening that aren't just "boring" proposals and votes.

In truth, I left for so long because things on the forum lulled, or the people I interacted with the most - my friends - got busy and I went to find other distractions. We all know the internet is an easy place to do that. And a few days turn into a few weeks, and then months, and years and so on. My email address was completely up-to-date on here, but not once in, what, two years since last time I was around did I get a notification from anyone about anything going on here, and I didn't give half a thought to this place until I was bored with my internet distractions and went, Oh yeeeeeahh... NationStates. OH YEAH! TNP! and ran back to see what was going on.

If we want members to participate more actively here, we need to have some more active outreach. A link on the WFE is basically a revolving door. We have people wander in and poke around and try and figure things out themselves, and most of the threads that show up on the front page of this forum lead to obscure political discussions where everyone seems to be angry at each other. Come on, that isn't exactly the warm welcome and happy atmosphere that leaves people inclined to stay and get to know us.

The reason I got as involved as I did, back in the day, and the reason I made so many friends over the years was because on the old old old forum, when I showed up, people said hello back, and interacted with me. I got PMs a-plenty with offers to answer questions or point out topics of interest, or other players I might like to interact with. And I dove in and made myself comfortable. Granted, not everyone is as wonderful and enthusiastic and easy to get along with as I am, but there's got to be a better face to the public than making them feel like they walked in on a rather dour discussion that they should just back away slowly from. Because that's the vibe I've gotten everywhere but the OOC since I've been back, it's like I've interrupted some angry shareholders' meeting.

I think an email newsletter might be a great outreach effort and a much-needed first impression makeover for this place.
 
Alright, since discussion has wandered a bit from the proposal on the floor, I'm gonna ask you guys to take further comments on activity/communication somewhere else - either the poll about text messages, or perhaps a new thread in the agora, ministry of communication, or wherever you think is appropriate. :)
 
As a newbie I would prefer to keep a regular election schedule. There is a lot for new members to the RA to learn, so keeping elections regular could help to reduce potential confusion.

I suppose a dedicated election official of some sort might be able to resolve that problem for us newbies, but I worry that things could get chaotic if information got lost if the election official suffers from unexpected problems (a computer crashing, files getting corrupted or lost, etc). Elections held at regular dates would buffer the system as a whole from this risk, as at least everyone would be able to agree on when to hold elections.
 
Scumshire:
Elections held at regular dates would buffer the system as a whole from this risk, as at least everyone would be able to agree on when to hold elections.
Click to expand...
Indeed - approximately every other week. :fish:
Vote early, vote often, vote like you didn't just vote for the same office last time.
 
SillyString:
Scumshire:
Elections held at regular dates would buffer the system as a whole from this risk, as at least everyone would be able to agree on when to hold elections.
Click to expand...
Indeed - approximately every other week. :fish:
Vote early, vote often, vote like you didn't just vote for the same office last time.
Click to expand...
Or, at least, hourly.

We could save a lot of time by simply having a vote decided by a simple plurality, or, better yet, you have everyone run for Delegate and the two top vote getters from first to second place get Delegate and Vice Delegate respectively.

Just think of the controversies with someone winning with less than 50% of the vote, but I digress, because that is exactly what happens in a run-off election. You reduce the whole field to just two candidates in a run-off and then a lot of people vote for someone whom they would have never voted for otherwise. The result is the same, run-off or not.
 
Romanoffia:
Just think of the controversies with someone winning with less than 50% of the vote, but I digress, because that is exactly what happens in a run-off election. You reduce the whole field to just two candidates in a run-off and then a lot of people vote for someone whom they would have never voted for otherwise. The result is the same, run-off or not.
Click to expand...
It's actually not the same, unless the person who wins the plurality originally also goes on to win the runoff.
 
Crushing Our Enemies:
Romanoffia:
Just think of the controversies with someone winning with less than 50% of the vote, but I digress, because that is exactly what happens in a run-off election. You reduce the whole field to just two candidates in a run-off and then a lot of people vote for someone whom they would have never voted for otherwise. The result is the same, run-off or not.
Click to expand...
It's actually not the same, unless the person who wins the plurality originally also goes on to win the runoff.
Click to expand...
If the person with the second-highest share of the votes goes on to win the run-off then, actually, they too won (the run-off) with less than 50% of the (initial) vote.

So I see Roman's point.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top