Townhall - Curial Commentary and Chat

[Iskar]

Does the constitution explicitly state the procedure for single candidate elections (snap elections)....

Or is that an interpretation sans explicit procedure.. ?

The Constitution explicitly states there needs to be a ratification vote with yes, no, and abstain even if there is but one applicant. This is noted in section II where elections in general are explained. Section III just states there needs to be a snap election in the case no runner up is willing to serve as replacement censor in the case of recusal. I would say it is understood this election is subject to the general procedures for elections in section II (since section III is primarily concerned with what the Triumvirate and Magistrates do and not with how elections work).

Regarding this whole affair (and the exchange with mish in the commentary) I must admit I would appreciate a ratification vote to observe proper procedure and give Van Zandt the formal legitimacy he deserves besides the widespread informal approval.
Given this was really just a snap election for a temporary replacement I do think invalidating the whole process and rerunning the entire procedure would be a bit out of proportion, but a post facto ratification vote of 24 hours could easily be held without slowing things down or placing an extraordinary burden on anyone, while putting things back in good order with the Constitution.

[Gaius Baltar]

I would say it is understood this election is subject to the general procedures for elections in section II ....

Neither section references the other, and the language in Section III outlines a different procedure than is listed in Section II. The terminology "shortened election" in Section III is even different.

Not trying to build on the semantics but it appears another amendment is needed to aline the two sections.

[Iskar]

You could make it explicitly clear by adding "subject to the procedures in Section II" to the appropriate footnote in section III, that is true, although section II authoritatively defines how elections work which then applies to any further mention of the term ("shortened election" not being a fixed term denoting a structurally different procedure, but just a description of another election with the special quality of lasting just one day).

[General Brewster]

If all this is becoming such a problem I'm going to throw the towel. Everyone is first to comment but participating themselves is a step to far. I'll get the CR done, leave the store in good order and open a curator election. This is becoming more of a burden then any fun/giving back to the community.

After 16 day's I will have served a year. That's good enough for me to close up shop.

[Iskar]

PS: Now that I reread the shortened election thing in Section III I have to admit it talks relatively much about the election procedure and how the winner is determined (plurality of votes), so I can see where people come from that read this as an election procedure in its own right, differing from that in Section II.

[Halie Satanus]

I do so love saying I told you so..... The constitution is not clear cut and short (snap) elections are not explicitly covered by the single candidate ruling. The single candidate stipulation should be in both sections, or the recusal clause should be in section II. Either or.

I was inclined from the beginning to give Brew some leeway on this, nothing stated since has changed my thinking..

@Brew, from one perspective you made a 'mistake,' from another you acted within the parameters of the constitution. Either way no one died and despite attempts from the CCT to make a mountain out of a pimple the issue can be easily fixed. I know from experience (I think), a year is more than most can stomach of any office. Don't be so hard on yourself.

Don't worry, if you really up, I'll be the first to let you know (if I beat Ponti to it)...

[PikeStance]

You could make it explicitly clear by adding "subject to the procedures in Section II" to the appropriate footnote in section III, that is true, although section II authoritatively defines how elections work which then applies to any further mention of the term ("shortened election" not being a fixed term denoting a structurally different procedure, but just a description of another election with the special quality of lasting just one day).

PS: Now that I reread the shortened election thing in Section III I have to admit it talks relatively much about the election procedure and how the winner is determined (plurality of votes), so I can see where people come from that read this as an election procedure in its own right, differing from that in Section II.

Probably a quick amendment to "tidy it up"

Regarding this whole affair (and the exchange with mish in the commentary) I must admit I would appreciate a ratification vote to observe proper procedure and give Van Zandt the formal legitimacy he deserves besides the widespread informal approval.
Given this was really just a snap election for a temporary replacement I do think invalidating the whole process and rerunning the entire procedure would be a bit out of proportion, but a post facto ratification vote of 24 hours could easily be held without slowing things down or placing an extraordinary burden on anyone, while putting things back in good order with the Constitution.

If all this is becoming such a problem I'm going to throw the towel. Everyone is first to comment but participating themselves is a step to far. I'll get the CR done, leave the store in good order and open a curator election. This is becoming more of a burden then any fun/giving back to the community.

After 16 day's I will have served a year. That's good enough for me to close up shop.

If we are accepting some ambiguity, then actions taken are mitigated. A quick amendment to tidy things will do the trick.

GB, I wouldn't overreact. People that seem to care are fine with your actions, those that don't (if any) don't.

[General Brewster]

Curator Report is up here.

@ Halie, thanks and I wouldn't expect anything less

@ Pike, I wouldn't call it over reacting in anyway.

[Aikanár]

Right.....

I'm on my phone, so please excuse the brevity.

One, thanks GB for your report, good job

Two, before the simplification, each election had a reference to the section explaining elections in general. Best to restore the this if it was lost in translation.

Three, GB, don't take anything to heart. You're doing good! Don't be frustrated, keep it coming. People don't mean to critisize you personally, they simply do not agree with you. Happens to me all the time, no big deal.

[Belthasar Bolton]

Gentlemen, the vote has concluded and Aikanar has been elected magistrate.

[Aikanár]

Thanks everybody who voted for me

[Halie Satanus]

Did we discuss members posting anything other than ‘Voted’ in vote threads? I’m sure we did but can’t recall if it was recent-ish or ten years ago.

Also pretty sure comments other than ‘voted’ were (constitutionally) prohibited as they may indicated a particular choice.. Though I presume that’s been lost over time..

[Iskar]

Strictly speaking all other comments are not allowed in vote threads:

When a resolution is moved to vote, the Prothalamos thread is left open and the Curator posts the latest version of the resolution, and a link to its Prothalamos thread, as a new poll in the Curia Vote forum. Subsequent posts in this thread are limited to the notification of having voted.

I guess this rule is enforced rather by its spirit than by its letter where comments are innocuous in nature (i.e. not related to which choice was or is to be made in the vote), though.

[PikeStance]

Well, it doesn't say you have to say "voted" just to informed that you notified that you had voted. Humor is tolerated as as long as it doesn't go beyond "notifying" you had voted.
Personally, I rarely read beyond the poll. Let's keep in fun.

[Halie Satanus]

Ah right. Personally I’d rather see that rule enforced. There’s plenty of opportunity to have fun elsewhere.

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

If you're referring to my comment for Van Zandt's voting post, then I apologize. I wasn't aware that such rule (official or not) existed.

[General Brewster]

Hello y'all,

I will be on a short vacation starting today until Monday the 9th of July. Bolton will be here to take care of proceedings.
Have a nice week y'all.

Cheers,
Brew

[♔Greek Strategos♔]

Hello y'all,

I will be on a short vacation starting today until Monday the 9th of July. Bolton will be here to take care of proceedings.
Have a nice week y'all.

Cheers,
Brew

Have fun old bean.

[♔atthias♔]

Hello y'all,

I will be on a short vacation starting today until Monday the 9th of July. Bolton will be here to take care of proceedings.
Have a nice week y'all.

Cheers,
Brew

have a good time maat

[Halie Satanus]

Re: the magistrate vote... Good grief...