[Proposal] Electoral Code Discussion

Treize Dreizehn · Post by **Treize Dreizehn** » Wed May 11, 2016 8:07 pm

First of all, I would suggest that elections start 9 days prior to the end of a particular term. With the bar being set at majority instead of plurality, it seems reasonable to expect at least one runoff in most elections (and if there isn't one, there's no harm in having the officer-elect use the extra 2 days as transition time).

Beyond that (and this purely pedantic, the language is technically sound), the phrasing in section 1 is a little clunkier than I'd like. Perhaps...

(1) The Pharaoh of the Osiris Fraternal Order may serve as electoral administrator for any election.
(2) In the event that the Pharaoh is unable or unwilling to administer an election, the Council of Priests will designate a Priest to administer the election.

Should give the Pharaoh first crack at the electoral administration role.

Other than that I have no real opinion on the finer points of the length of individual segments of the electoral period. Most of what's suggested will work fine.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Wed May 11, 2016 8:08 pm

Those suggestions sound fine to me. I'll give others some time to weigh in before making any revisions.

Post by **ARR** » Thu May 12, 2016 9:31 am

For reasons you can probably guess, being new and all, I am not happy with ties being broken by length of residency. It seems very anti-change to me.

Instead, I'd recommend not giving ascent to the constitution and sending it back to include proportional voting. Though their may be some enitial instability, having an electoral system that will not cause unrest is worth it.

Post by **ARR** » Thu May 12, 2016 9:33 am

I'd also like, if possible, to add a rather odd condition, if it is possible, though I'm not sure where it would go.

In order to prevent popularity contests, have candidates submit non-identifying manifestos, which are what voters vote for, rather than the candidates themselves.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Thu May 12, 2016 7:00 pm

ARR wrote:Thu May 12, 2016 2:31 pmFor reasons you can probably guess, being new and all, I am not happy with ties being broken by length of residency. It seems very anti-change to me.

This is something we can discuss alternatives for, I'm just not sure how to break a tie if the Pharaoh and Priests can't vote in the Council of Scribes and everyone else has already voted in an election.

ARR wrote:Thu May 12, 2016 2:31 pmInstead, I'd recommend not giving ascent to the constitution and sending it back to include proportional voting. Though their may be some enitial instability, having an electoral system that will not cause unrest is worth it.

I'm not sure what you mean by "proportional voting." We had already discussed instant run-off voting, and decided against that because it didn't work out here before. If you're referring to proportional representation, that doesn't work because the elected offices we have are filled by one person.

I am definitely not declining assent to the constitution and sending it back. We need to move forward, and the constitution was posted for discussion for quite some time before unanimously passing.

ARR wrote:Thu May 12, 2016 2:33 pmI'd also like, if possible, to add a rather odd condition, if it is possible, though I'm not sure where it would go.

In order to prevent popularity contests, have candidates submit non-identifying manifestos, which are what voters vote for, rather than the candidates themselves.

I'm not sure that would work out well. Who a candidate is and what they've done in the past, here and elsewhere, can be relevant.

I've edited my above draft to include Treize's suggestions. Anyone else?

Ridersyl · Post by **Ridersyl** » Thu May 12, 2016 7:29 pm

I'd like to motion this to a vote.

Neo Kervoskia · Post by **Neo Kervoskia** » Thu May 12, 2016 8:07 pm

I second the motion.

Post by **ARR** » Thu May 12, 2016 9:51 pm

Wait wait wait. We cant motion it to a vote until we know what the actual electoral system will be and how to sort out all the kinks. Basically, if it comes to a tie, I'd have it decided on what they've done for the region. Bills authored, regional operations participated in, etc. It may require some form of points system, however I'd happily work that out.

Joshua Bluteisen · Post by **Joshua Bluteisen** » Fri May 13, 2016 7:58 pm

I third the motion.

Cormac · Post by **Cormac** » Fri May 13, 2016 8:02 pm

ARR wrote:Fri May 13, 2016 2:51 amWait wait wait. We cant motion it to a vote until we know what the actual electoral system will be and how to sort out all the kinks. Basically, if it comes to a tie, I'd have it decided on what they've done for the region. Bills authored, regional operations participated in, etc. It may require some form of points system, however I'd happily work that out.

Most seem content with the electoral system established in this draft, which is why they're moving it to vote.

Regarding a points system, it's a worthy idea in terms of wanting people to advance by merit -- which I think is something we all want -- but the problem with it is that it's too subjective. When you get into the business of picking a winner in a tie based on subjective criteria, you end up with accusations of subjective favoritism. Length of citizenship, while perhaps not ideal, is a firmly objective criterion that can't be questioned.

In the end, the best way to ensure that the most meritorious candidate advances is to vote for that candidate. If there is one candidate who is obviously more meritorious than the other, there shouldn't be a tie.