Election Votes

[mishkin]

(via Omni)

The-Constitution
-----------------------------------------------
Election Votes
When a Curial Election is required the Curator shall open an application thread and debate thread in the Curia main and post an announcement in any relevant forum. Applicants for the vacant position must post their confirmation in the application thread, and if they wish reasons for wanting to hold the position and any relevant qualifications. Any comments or debates must be posted in the debate thread. The Hexagon 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 forum. 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. The debate thread is closed upon the conclusion of the poll.

Where the election is for the position of Curator all candidates must meet the requirements of Censor applications. The election follows the above procedure.

In the event that a Curial Officer wins an election for another Curial Office, they are required to immediately resign their original Curial Office. An election for the vacant will take place as per the procedure in Section 3, Article 2.
--------------------------------------------------

It seems we've been pissing in the constitution.

[Iskar]

I see. I just followed the procedure I observed in previous elections for the election threads I set up. Will change that in the future (whenever I'm CA). I would have expected Hex to veto a candidate right at the application stage, though, if they wanted to do so.

[Sir Adrian]

There's the RPG I've been talking about. As if it matters if a thread is one forum or not as long as people who want to vote can find it easily.

[mishkin]

Iskar, this is not about you. This is about the citizens in general but mostly about the curators: Shank (one case) and Pike.

[Iskar]

There's the RPG I've been talking about. As if it matters if a thread is one forum or not as long as people who want to vote can find it easily.

The point is that there was no vote thread at all for the past six elections. I do not think this is about RPG either. The issue is simply that if we have self-imposed rules for certain procedures then we should abide by them or scrap them altogether, not have them de iure in place but de facto ignore them. It's a question of mere consistency of the system.

Iskar, this is not about you. This is about the citizens in general but mostly about the curators: Shank (one case) and Pike.

Considering that I set up the past two elections and that I actually have eyes to read the constitution it is actually my fault, too, instead of going by an argumentum auctoritate and just doing what Shank and Pike did.

[mishkin]

Arent you just a curator assistant? You're not the responsible at all.

[Iskar]

Yeah, I am not accountable as per the constitution, but from a moral-personal point of view I should still act with the utmost diligence, even if it is "only" to spare my boss the reprehension.

[mishkin]

I have been appointed censor in an unconstitutional manner. I'd like to think about it more calmly (listening to reactions and solutions to the problem), but the triumvirate cant wait, so I resign.

[Sir Adrian]

The point is that there was no vote thread at all for the past six elections. I do not think this is about RPG either. The issue is simply that if we have self-imposed rules for certain procedures then we should abide by them or scrap them altogether, not have them de iure in place but de facto ignore them. It's a question of mere consistency of the system.

Considering that I set up the past two elections and that I actually have eyes to read the constitution it is actually my fault, too, instead of going by an argumentum auctoritate and just doing what Shank and Pike did.

You can't organize a vote when there is only one candidate unless you have a minimum vote threshold because there would be no point to it as you can win with 1 or even 0 votes. If people believe that the candidate is not good enough they will make it known during the lengthy discussion period. I get that we need procedures but this kind of "constitutional" obtuseness is plain and simple RPG and a reminder of the bad old days.

Common sense > sticking to the text ad literam

[Iskar]

Hmm, you can hold people accountable for following the text ad literam or not, but you cannot judge common sense due to its subjectivity. If we think that the rules conflict with common sense then the solution will be to amend them, not to break or ignore them.

Also, an applicant is required to receive the plurality of votes (not "non-abstaining" votes), hence even if there is only one applicant and you have that applicant and abstention as options in the election then the applicant could still fail if more people abstain than vote for him/her.

[mishkin]

delete/sorry

[Omnipotent-Q]

You can't organize a vote when there is only one candidate unless you have a minimum vote threshold because there would be no point to it as you can win with 1 or even 0 votes. If people believe that the candidate is not good enough they will make it known during the lengthy discussion period. I get that we need procedures but this kind of "constitutional" obtuseness is plain and simple RPG and a reminder of the bad old days.

Common sense > sticking to the text ad literam

Eh? What I said in passing in some other thread makes perfect common sense. If there's no election vote for say Curator because there's one candidate, then it's less likely members or new citizens that don't know every whimsical part of the constitution that it's a thing they can run for. It's about getting elections exposed and out there as much as possible. I've been in the Curia for a only a short time, and I find it difficult tracking elections if half of it isn't run. How new citizens find it? Who could know.

they will make it known during the lengthy discussion period

Not running a vote literally halves the discussion period.

Do you not think when this part of the constitution was written it was considered that only one person would run? Of course not, why would they think of that ever possibly happening! Perhaps we can pick and choose some other constitutional rules not to follow. Perhaps adding some new citizens without a vote or something like this. Actually, I'm in favour of that...forget I mentioned that. You know man, It's a slippery slope. It's nothing to do with RPG's or whatever nonsense you're insinuating. Either we follow the constitution, or we don't bother. Simple as that. Abstain can also beat a candidate technically, and cutting out half the entire electoral, pectoral, process because one person is running removes any realistic possibility of anyone ever using a veto, even if the circumstances justified it.

This is something I mentioned in passing. If this was an "rpg" thing then I would be going nuts and VonC'ing everyone for a bit of a laugh. This is what would have happened in the 'bad old days' you weren't even around for. It was throwing out terms like "RPG", "elitist", "fluffy", and prevailing attitudes that made those 'dark days'....if you could ever term an internet forum as having such a thing. If you don't like this part of the constitution, then you can try and change it if you want. I wasn't pointing fingers or giving anyone beef. In fact the names thrown out as not doing this part of the procedure have been very impressive. Didn't want to cause trouble or anything. All I said was that elections are written into the constitution like that for a reason. If explaining why part of the document is worded in one particular way is "RPGing" then I must be a level 100 Curial Mage.

Scrap that, I'm a ing level 10,000 Curial warrior lad. THAT'S WHAT I DOOOOOO!!!!111!!111!!55%

[PikeStance]

It would seem the more fanciful the inference the more it is clear and the when the inference rest on common sense, a strict adherence to literal word must be observe. I get people have different ways of reading things, but it is to the point now that we run the risk of rendering the constitution into a meaningless document.

Tell me again why people do not want anything to do with the Curia?

[mishkin]

Tell me again why people do not want anything to do with the Curia?

Because one day the Constitution is sacred, and next it is just an ornament.

We have a problem, what shall we do Pike?

[PikeStance]

I do not see a problem. Shanks and I exercise common sense. There is no point to nullify the only willing candidate for a position by holding an "election." This site survives on the voluntary services of its members. It would be counter productive to allow and "election" with the potential to humiliate a potential candidate with people potential voting "none of the above."

[mishkin]

You have ignored a important point of the constitution, and this (to make sure the Constitution is fulfilled) is one of your functions as Curator.
Some positions have been filled fraudulently. Can you deny this?

[PikeStance]

No, I chose an interpretation you apparently do not agree with. You are not obligated to agree with my interpretation. I will not sacrifice my own principles to satisfy what you think.

[mishkin]

No, I chose an interpretation you apparently do not agree with. You are not obligated to agree with my interpretation. I will not sacrifice my own principles to satisfy what you think.

"the Curator shall open a poll in the Curia Votes forum"

It is a very clear sentence in my opinion, not subject to interpretation.

[PikeStance]

It is clear to me that it is making an assumption that the position is contested. This is an example on why people do not want anything to do with the Curia.

[Omnipotent-Q]

Wow...I had no idea the Curia had turned into a pot den.

Can I just clarify that you're choosing to ignore a basic laid out process in the constitution? I'm not too bothered about no polls, but I am bothered if this then descends to ignoring other processes, like adding 20 citizens without a vote. Which is the next natural step after this. Particularly when you have the means to do that as well.

I'll be honest, I will massively rant if the answers yes. Apologies for that in advance, I know there's an election on. I've seen enough absurd zingers about members not being interested in the Curia because people complain if the constitution, set out and voted into existence by members, is not followed. Yeah sure - maybe the easiest way to avoid that, is to follow the processes members have selected to be followed? This conversation wouldn't happen in the first place if that was the case you know. I hate to be anal or cause trouble, but I'm greatly concerned that if one part of the constitution is ignored by a Curator, then other parts get ignored too before long. I've seen it happen, it never ends well, and resolving such matters is nearly always....very time consuming.