[Amendment] Clarifying Vacancy Procedure in regards to the CdeC

[Jom]

Proposer: Jom

Supporters: Major Darling, Legio, irishron

Following on from the discussion found here this amendment will eliminate the ambiguity surrounding the Curator's actions in this specific case.

With thanks to Viking Prince and Squid for their input and help with the current wording.

Elections

Consilium de Civitates members are elected as per Article II, Section II for three months, with the added requirements that candidates have no active Staff warnings and not received any Consilium de Civitates warnings within the last three months at the time of election and hold their rank for three months.

If a member of the Consilium de Civitates leaves office for any reason before the expiration of their term, resigns during their term, and that term is less than 50% completed (that is, it has over one and a half months left to run), an election will be held for a replacement member to serve the remainder of the term. If the resigning member's term is more than 50% completed, the vacant position may be filled by Curator appointment. The Curator may appoint a Citizen that ran in the immediate previous election or a volunteering Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position. The appointment shall expire with the positions that are next up for election when a replacement member will be elected to serve the remainder of the term. Any vacant positions will be filled in decreasing order of time remaining on the term starting from the the next highest vote recipient after those who are elected to full terms.

New elections will be held prior to the expiry of member's terms in order The Curator should take appropriate and reasonable actions within the guidelines set out above to ensure that the Consilium de Civitates remains at full strength.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Good first try, but it needs to also address the unlikely occurrence of two or more resignations. Either make the part about '4th seat' more vague and applicable to Nth seats, or add in a second procedure for what happens if more than X resignations occur in the space of an election.

[Lysimachus]

Support. One thing which I think is ambiguous however, is:

If the resigning member's term is more than 50% completed, the vacant position may be filled by a volunteering Staff Member who otherwise fits the requirements for the position.

Since Content Staff are technically forum staff, that implies that they could apply for the position too, unless that's intentional.

[Jom]

Support. One thing which I think is ambiguous however, is:



Since Content Staff are technically forum staff, that implies that they could apply for the position too, unless that's intentional.

You need to be a citizen and have been one for 3 months before applying so there's no problem with the current wording. Presumably the Curator can exercise discretion to choose whom they think to be the best candidate.

Good first try, but it needs to also address the unlikely occurrence of two or more resignations. Either make the part about '4th seat' more vague and applicable to Nth seats, or add in a second procedure for what happens if more than X resignations occur in the space of an election.

I didn't realise it was such an awful job and so many people would want to resign

Thanks for the suggestion - done.

[Squid]

That isn't feasible, if the election is currently running and a citizen has already cast their vote for three candidates and resignation(s) occur after said vote has been cast, then those citizens who have already voted are being shortchanged in their ability to select members for CdeC or all citizens are being shortchanged if they are forced to only vote for three councilors even if more seats are available.

[M D]

DAMN! I was second lol

Replace the 4th with something more vague..

Otherwise, support.

[Jom]

DAMN! I was second lol

Replace the 4th with something more vague..

Otherwise, support.

Why does that need to be done? In the case we're talking about there will always be 3 candidates elected directly and then the 4th who also goes through. From what I can see "4th" is absolutely necessary here.

That isn't feasible, if the election is currently running and a citizen has already cast their vote for three candidates and resignation(s) occur after said vote has been cast, then those citizens who have already voted are being shortchanged in their ability to select members for CdeC or all citizens are being shortchanged if they are forced to only vote for three councilors even if more seats are available.

The reasoning here, Squid, is that anyone who would stand for the by-election would have been in the main election anyway and, if they are to win that by-election then they would have logically come 4th in the main vote anyway. I don't see any short changing taking place, really.

[Augustus Lucifer]

Bearing Squid's sentiment in mind, it may be better to institute a run-off procedure as opposed to a filling vacancies procedure. He's correct in saying that if each voter had a fourth vote the results may be different. Resolving that by going through two weeks of application and vote is silly however, since we just had applicants and debate. So I'd say something like:

In the event a Councilor resigns while a Consilium de Civitates election is ongoing, the candidates who were not elected by the initial vote will be placed in a runoff ballot. The runoff vote will last for three days and fill at most one vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy, a new election should be held.

[Jom]

Bearing Squid's sentiment in mind, it may be better to institute a run-off procedure as opposed to a filling vacancies procedure. He's correct in saying that if each voter had a fourth vote the results may be different. Resolving that by going through two weeks of application and vote is silly however, since we just had applicants and debate. So I'd say something like:

I like this change, although I added in a little clarification just so it can't be read as an entirely new election being held with 5 or more different candidates for the post. I know it's a bit pedantic but it's ambiguity that got us into this situation in the first place.

Here we are:

In the event a Councilor resigns while a Consilium de Civitates election is ongoing, the candidates who were not elected by the initial vote will be placed in a runoff ballot. The runoff vote will last for three days and fill at most one vacancy. If there is more than one vacancy, a new election will be held to fill the seats vacated by the resignations.

[magickyleo101]

I support the original language. I don't think it's worth having a whole new election for just one seat.

As for Squid's point:

That isn't feasible, if the election is currently running and a citizen has already cast their vote for three candidates and resignation(s) occur after said vote has been cast, then those citizens who have already voted are being shortchanged in their ability to select members for CdeC or all citizens are being shortchanged if they are forced to only vote for three councilors even if more seats are available.

I'd point out that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system (See also). Yeah, some people get shortchanged under this system, but people also get shortchanged in run-off systems.

[Jom]

I support the original language. I don't think it's worth having a whole new election for just one seat.

Not even a shortened 3-day by-election, Magickyleo?

[Squid]

I'd point out that there is no such thing as a perfect voting system (See also). Yeah, some people get shortchanged under this system, but people also get shortchanged in run-off systems.

Of course there's no perfect system, but its clear that people are getting shortchanged by not being able to vote for all seats, but allowing any citizen to actually be able to vote for all positions being filled is hardly shortchanging them. I'm unsure how having an extra election for vacant positions shortchanges anyone.

[Lysimachus]

You need to be a citizen and have been one for 3 months before applying so there's no problem with the current wording. Presumably the Curator can exercise discretion to choose whom they think to be the best candidate.

Yes but you can be both a citizen and a content member. Currently, the clause could be interpreted in that all staff members could fill in (moderation, administration AND content) whereas i'm guessing the intention is for one of the moderators or administrators to assume the position. Nonetheless, add my support down since I support the main idea of the amendment.

[Leonidas The Lion]

Support.

[Viking Prince]

Why not allow the Curator to simply appoint the highest unelected candidate(s) from the previous election in lieu of running a new special election (leaving running a special election still as a Curator option). Let's not make this complicated. this can also be used for all CdeC vacancies and not simply for those with more than 1/2 the term yet to be served.

[Jom]

Why not allow the Curator to simply appoint the highest unelected candidate(s) from the previous election in lieu of running a new special election (leaving running a special election still as a Curator option). Let's not make this complicated. this can also be used for all CdeC vacancies and not simply for those with more than 1/2 the term yet to be served.

Because some are worried about perceived injustices in that system. Personally I have no problem with how Meg handled this affair but the Constitution should try to cater for the masses and offer the most popular compromise therefore I opted for the run-off election with a shorter duration as proposed by AL.

[Augustus Lucifer]

To evidence why the lack of a fourth vote could change the results, I'd point to the 2008 Heisman Trophy Voting. If the voters only were allowed to select one candidate, their #1 choice, Tim Tebow would have won. Since they got to order the candidates he came in third. The difference between that system and ours is it uses weighted voting rather than simple multiple selection, but the underlying principle is the same. That is to say that the 4th vote getter with 3 choices may not be the 4th vote getter with 4 choices, since another user may be the overwhelming 4th choice of voters.

[magickyleo101]

To evidence why the lack of a fourth vote could change the results, I'd point to the 2008 Heisman Trophy Voting. If the voters only were allowed to select one candidate, their #1 choice, Tim Tebow would have won. Since they got to order the candidates he came in third. The difference between that system and ours is it uses weighted voting rather than simple multiple selection, but the underlying principle is the same. That is to say that the 4th vote getter with 3 choices may not be the 4th vote getter with 4 choices, since another user may be the overwhelming 4th choice of voters.

Of course there's no perfect system, but its clear that people are getting shortchanged by not being able to vote for all seats, but allowing any citizen to actually be able to vote for all positions being filled is hardly shortchanging them. I'm unsure how having an extra election for vacant positions shortchanges anyone.

I think everyone agrees that changing the voting system can change the outcome, but what doesn't follow from this is that adding in a 4th vote makes the system better reflect social choice or makes it more fair. Arrow's theorem documents this quite well. In fact, given AL's obvious familiarity with variations in voting systems, I'm surprised AL hasn't come across Arrow's proof before.

So given that we're not going to make the system better reflect social preferences, we might as well make it as fast as possible. We do that by only having one vote.

[Squid]

I think everyone agrees that changing the voting system can change the outcome, but what doesn't follow from this is that adding in a 4th vote makes the system better reflect social choice or makes it more fair. Arrow's theorem documents this quite well. In fact, given AL's obvious familiarity with variations in voting systems, I'm surprised AL hasn't come across Arrow's proof before.

So given that we're not going to make the system better reflect social preferences, we might as well make it as fast as possible. We do that by only having one vote.

I don't say it makes the system better, but it does make it more fair, curial precedent is one vote for each CdeC seat, I don't have to vote for all seats, but I have the option of doing so (just like I can spoil a ballot rather than vote for a candidate). I also fail to see why speed is of any concern, as I've said CdeC has survived without all its members, either because of absences or resignations, and nothing detrimental occured, so taking the extra time, or even just waiting until the next election, which is what has traditionally be done, is not doing to affect anything.

[Trax]

No need to complicate things too much. The poor Curator will have to carry them out.
The current method is simple and supported by precedents.