Osiris Fraternal Order

So this is just a working title, but over the last week or so, I've noticed(as have others) a few problems we'll need to address with the code. I'll list the issues here, and if no one else comes up with a draft by tomorrow, I'll handle it.

The Keeper shouldn't be able to vote in Pharaoh Elections.

The Keeper should be able to break ties in Pharaoh Elections(in the runoffs only), however.

The Keeper shouldn't be able to run for Pharaoh.

The Pharaoh and Vizier ought to be able to vote in the Pharaoh Elections.

There should be a mechanism where if 100% of the votes come in, an election or vote can be called early(this isn't an oversight, it's just fairly unprecedented until now).

Those are the things we probably need to include. Here are some arguable suggestions:

New applications to the Deshret ought to be frozen during elections. I did this of my own accord, but I'd like to see it codified to avoid abuse by a future Keeper.

The Elections ought to not count against folks for activity requirements(but they should still count FOR them positively).

Right now that's all I can think of. People I've talked to over the last few days, let me know if I've forgotten anything, and if anyone else has some suggested amendments to the code, we can create a single bill to fix the holes.

All of those seem sensible and I agree entirely!

Aye, same here!

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:02 amThe Pharaoh and Vizier ought to be able to vote in the Pharaoh Elections.

I agree regarding the Pharaoh as it's unfair not to let an incumbent Pharaoh vote for himself when his opponents can vote for themselves. I'm not sure I agree in regard to the Vizier, primarily because if the Keepership is vacant the Vizier is supposed to preside over the Deshret. If we're going to allow the Vizier to vote we need to make clear that he can't vote if he's presiding over the Deshret, and thus over the election.

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:02 amThere should be a mechanism where if 100% of the votes come in, an election or vote can be called early(this isn't an oversight, it's just fairly unprecedented until now).

You're correct that this wasn't an oversight, but I actually disagree. We did have this provision in the Procedure of the Deshret in the old Osiris, and it was a provision with which I was never comfortable. Votes on legislation can change after someone notices a serious flaw; votes for candidates can change over the course of campaigning or if circumstances change. I'm not sure we should limit the window of opportunity for those changes to happen just because everyone has voted.

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:02 amNew applications to the Deshret ought to be frozen during elections. I did this of my own accord, but I'd like to see it codified to avoid abuse by a future Keeper.

I agree with this suggestion but I don't think it should be included in the State Code. I think it should be incorporated into an Election Act, as the State Code shouldn't provide for every possible scenario and we need something for our statutory laws to do. If you see a reason this needs to be in the State Code that I've missed, though, I'm open to hearing it.

Treize Dreizehn wrote:Thu Jan 23, 2014 2:02 amThe Elections ought to not count against folks for activity requirements(but they should still count FOR them positively).

I'm fairly sure I don't agree with this. They either shouldn't count at all or should count both ways. I tend to think they should count, as these are still votes by the Deshret, and rather important ones at that. If we allow both a Present option for those who can't decide between candidates and a Reopen Nominations option for those who don't like any of the candidates, the only people not voting would be the inactive.

My reasoning for this is that the activity requirements are to encourage activity and discourage holding membership in the Deshret without really caring what happens in the region, and we should be doing that especially in the case of elections rather than exempting them.

As an additional note, I just noticed that we also need to amend Section 5.1 to clarify that the Pharaoh can only appoint citizens as Elders of the Pschent. And here I thought we had covered that everywhere.

As an additional note, I just noticed that we also need to amend Section 5.1 to clarify that the Pharaoh can only appoint citizens as Elders of the Pschent. And here I thought we had covered that everywhere.

Well I'll be damned, can't believe we missed that one. Very important. Aye to that!

EDIT:

(Draft Amendment) Section 5: Pschent of Osiris wrote: 1. The Pschent will be the judicial council of Osiris, comprised of three Elders of the Pschent appointed by the Pharaoh with the approval of the Deshret. Elders of the Pschent will not serve as Pharaoh, Vizier, Scribe of the Hedjet, Guardian of the Atef, or Keeper of the Deshret and will not serve as junior officials for any of these offices for the duration of their service on the Pschent.

(a) Only citizens of Osiris may be appointed to the Pschent.

(a)(b) Elders may maintain active involvement in Priesthoods of the Hedjet and may serve as Councilors of the Deshret while serving as Elders.

Additionally, I have been convinced by the statement of Cormac regarding a possible mechanism where an election or vote can be called early..

Votes on legislation can change after someone notices a serious flaw; votes for candidates can change over the course of campaigning or if circumstances change. I'm not sure we should limit the window of opportunity for those changes to happen just because everyone has voted.

I agree. But we should only be restrictive in terms of elections. For the passage of laws meanwhile, I may support a mechanism where if all the valid votes have come in, then the Keeper may call early a vote on a bill or any motion laid before the Deshret.

So far we have no objection to these changes(at least on the substance, not the language):

3.1.a: Any Councilor may issue a challenge and challenge elections will be administered by the Keeper of the Deshret, who is eligible to vote for Pharaoh only in the case of a runoff in which all candidates have an equal number of votes,

3.1.b: When a challenge election is initiated by the Deshret, a three day period for submission of candidacies will begin. Only Councilors of the Deshret who are not the Keeper are eligible candidates. The incumbent Pharaoh will not be barred from submitting a candidacy.

3.1.e: The Pharaoh and the Vizier will be allowed to submit a vote for the office of Pharaoh.

Given that 3.1.e is now superfluous, I'm intending to replace it with the new 3.1.e. If there are any problems with the language, let me know.

Josh, am I right in assuming that's just a new 5.1.a?

I think the Keeper should only vote in a run-off tie if the tie is between all candidates. For example, if there's a tie between three candidates the Keeper should vote. If there's a tie between two candidates and the third candidate has less votes, there should be another run-off.

Otherwise I'm fine with these changes.

Check the language now.

Aye, that does the trick.

Josh, am I right in assuming that's just a new 5.1.a?

Aye. I'm already fine with 5.1 as it is, I just figured with just make the citizenship requirement paragraph a.