[Proposal] Elections and candidates

[removeduser_487563287433]

Proposal to increase the quality of elections

Proposed by Ferrets54
Supported by Harry Lime, Shyam Popat, Scar Face, Shaun, Trax, Hotspur, aja5191 and jimkatalanos

With mind to help less well known citizens and increase the quality of elections, rather than them relying on popularity of candidates, we suggest that a thread accompany certain curial elections where citizens may ask candidates or a candidate some questions or a question. The provisions of this thread is that non-candidates will only post a maximum of twice in it, and will keep these posts to relevent questions. It is expected that citizens will not abuse this in any way.

Here follows an amendment to formalise this.

Article 2 - Election Procedure

When the Curia is required to elect an Officer or Rank, or ratify an appoint, the following process shall be applied.

Ratification Votes

When a member has been duly appointed as a Staff Officer, and where required, is ratified by his branch. After two weeks have elapsed from his appointment the Speaker of the House shall post a poll in the Curia Votes forum. The Speaker shall state which position the member has been appointed to, and that they have been ratified by their colleagues if appropriate. The vote shall last for one week, and the member shall be ratified if they receive a simple majority of non abstaining votes.

Election Votes

When a Curial Election is required, the Curator shall open an application thread in the Curia and the Speaker of the House shall post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their reasons for wishing to hold the position and any relevant qualifications in the application thread. Any comments, debates or off topic posting shall be deleted. The thread shall remain open for no longer than one week.

The Council may veto applicants, and should more than six members apply for any position, may shortlist six members to stand for the election. Once applications are complete, the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes, and sticky the thread. The vote shall last for one week, and the member who receives the plurality of votes shall be elected.

Where more than one of the same position is vacant, the procedure is the same, and the members with the highest votes are elected. In the case of ties, a run off vote is held between the tied members lasting 3 days.

Where the vacant position is that of Curator, the Speaker of the House shall undertake the Curator's duties in relation to the vote. Where the position is Curator, Speaker of the House or a Council seat a debate thread shall be opened in the votes forum by the Curator or Speaker for Curia members to question candidates on their election. No non-candidate may post in this thread more than twice, and all must be directing a relevent question(s) towards candidate. Candidates may post as much as needed in this thread.

[sapi]

Not a bad idea

How about you put it in a curial subforum, and have each candidate open a thread there as the means of their nomination?

I can just see the applications thread getting quite cluttered if we were to have dozens of candidates * dozens of questions...

[removeduser_487563287433]

Only two questions per poster, though. So he would either ask a candidate a few questions specifically, or perhaps ask a blanket question to all candidates.

[Shaun]

I agree with Ferrets, this is a good idea. I shall certainly support this if it doesn't change too much.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

One member wants to question just one candidate, and offers two questions - this is fine. But 10 members questioning one candidate and offering two questions each in the application thread really would get clustered.

I propose the candidates apply in the application thread - when all applications are taken, a thread is opened for each candidate and so these questions can be separated and easier to work with.

Its all very bureaucratic and nitpicky, but neatness creates less problems.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Perhaps in future we could have in the vote forum all actuall poll threads stickied - and question threads not?

However, I think there should only be one question thread per vote thread. Nobody is going to read ten threads for one vote, we must be realistic.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

Yeah, that'd work - you mean, instead of a thread per candidate, we'd have a thread for questions to all candidates?

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yes indeed.

[Trax]

Support

[Simetrical]

I would suggest making all questions optional. If people choose not to answer, of course, you might judge them accordingly. But if they're mandatory and someone has to take a day off from TWC, you'd either have to disqualify them or hold up the whole election.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Yeah, I never had any intention of making this mandatory for candidates, but failing to answer any questions without a valid excuse will not look good. As it should be.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

That's fair enough. To be honest, I think the upcoming election will just be a prototype of sorts for this proposal, as it could be extremely advantageous or not work at all.

[Hotspur]

I support as well, although because of the timing this wouldn't go into effect as a procedure until after the election had started, though you could start such a thread on an ad-hoc basis for the current election...

[aja5191]

I support.

This really gives people an idea of what they're voting for, more tahn just the citizen's reputation as a member, but rather as a judge of character.

[jimkatalanos]

OK, I support this.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

My first attempt at a draft:

Article 5 - Consilium de Civitates

Elections

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article 2 of this Section - with the added requirements that candidates have no Staff warnings at the time of election and hold their rank for three months. The election thread will be stickied in the Prothalamos, and a separate thread will be made in which questions can be asked of the candidates.

The only problems I have are, firstly, that it would only be fair to do this for all elections, and secondly, that all questions be to all candidates. Singling out candidates could lead to factionalism and one group of people who dislike a certain candidate pressuring him into looking bad and thus losing the vote.

[removeduser_487563287433]

I had in mind this applied to all elections, including Curator, Speaker and maybe moderator ratification - though I am not too sure about that. I will write something up tomorrow.

[Simetrical]

Not moderator ratification, please.

[removeduser_487563287433]

Not moderator ratification, please.

No stamina for such debates?

[sapi]

No stamina for such debates?

It's not necessary - and besides, if you're being pragmatic, you'd realise that by adding that baggage to the bill, you'd most likely drown it