[Amendment] Election Procedure

[Banned]

Proposer: Annaeus
Supporters: SirPaladin and Leonidas The Lion.

I propose the following amendment:

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. 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 Members may post as much as needed in this thread.

Well, I hardly see a need for not allowing the members to participate freely according to their wish in debates, such as this one. Above all, a debate is a talk about something at length and in detail, especially as part of a formal exchange of opinion. And if the views are restricted to only two posts by a particular user, I think that the debate barely stands as purposeful.

[iudas]

I support this. I don't think allowing any member to post as much as he/she wills would harm the debate.

[Leonidas The Lion]

I support.

[Scar Face]

I do not support. From my understanding of the original bill the debate was intended to be between applicants. Regular members post the questions, that is as far as they should go.

[iudas]

I do not support. From my understanding of the original bill the debate was intended to be between applicants. Regular members post the questions, that is as far as they should go.

There is no need to place restrictions that have no purpose. Also there is no need to place restrictions that are not going to be respected.

[Scar Face]

There is no need to place restrictions that have no purpose.

It serves a purpose. The debate is meant to show the views of the applicants and allow them to spar against one another if needed, it is not meant to simply be a debate about the topic in general.

Also there is no need to place restrictions that are not going to be respected.

Then perhaps we should begin to enforce said restriction?

[iudas]

It serves a purpose. The debate is meant to show the views of the applicants and allow them to spar against one another if needed, it is not meant to simply be a debate about the topic in general.

Your opinion. I do not share it.

Then perhaps we should begin to enforce said restriction?

Hmmm, good point...

[Banned]

I do not support. From my understanding of the original bill the debate was intended to be between applicants. Regular members post the questions, that is as far as they should go.

A debate between applicants? What purpose would it solve? Secondly, supposedly if a member isn't satisfied with the answer from the candidate even after two posts made by him, what's wrong with making another one and asking for explanation? And if that's being done, why not simply allow regular members to post as much as they want? I see no objective getting failed if we do allow this. Rather if we preclude this change from taking place, then the actual purpose of a "debate" does tend to decline.

Against. The two post rule is designed to limit the ability of people to attack certain candidates they dislike.

You can attack as much as you want even in a single post.

[Publius]

Indeed, but for the greater good.

While I am not the Curator or Speaker Annaeus, simply proposing a Bill doesn't give one the moral authority not to follow rules currently in place, does it? That logic escapes me.

As for the Bill itself, I mostly agree with Scar Face. The CdeC Debate thread exists so people can figure out what candidates views on issues are, not so they can debate them on those issues. I'm not a huge fan of black and white cut-offs, but a line in the sand has to be drawn somewhere.

[Muizer]

Perhaps an election debate commentary thread?

[Elrond]

Perhaps an election debate commentary thread?

That would risk popularizing elections (even more than normal). Commentary threads risk small vocal groups of people swinging the result of an election.

[Muizer]

That would risk popularizing elections (even more than normal). Commentary threads risk small vocal groups of people swinging the result of an election.

Quite the contrary. If you don't give people a real chance to participate they will lose interest in the issues and vote on superficial characteristics like how well known a candidate is (which usually equates to whoever has the coolest badge).

[removeduser_487563287433]

Against. The two post rule is designed to limit the ability of people to attack certain candidates they dislike.

[Banned]

Um.. no more election enthusiasts?