CDS Discussion

After shortly logging in, I've noticed that the voting booths are still not in place.

Our Chancellor confirmed to me that he didn't put them out on Saturday. The reason given was that the RA changed the dates on Sunday. Besides the discrepancy, as I've noticed elsewhere, the amendment approved by the RA on Sunday is not in effect until the SC ratifies it. So there is no reason for not having the elections at the appointed time: all the other requirements seem to be in place.

A comment was made that there might have been some technical problems with the ballot server early Saturday. The SC has 12 hours (after the election starts) to fix those problems, or, if they take longer to fix, they're allowed to postpone the election dates. They didn't do that. The reason for the server failure (if there was any) is unknown and remains unexplained. The SC, on a meeting early Saturday, confirmed that the SC cannot change the dates of the election and that the RA cannot do that, either, except via a Constitutional Amendment — which has not been ratified.

A rumour (yes, just that and nothing more than that) has been spread that the SC is not going to meet soon. While this can be true or not, it means that there is no reason to believe that either a) an explanation for the server failure will be formally given; b) an explanation for the lack of interest by the SC in validating that the booths are correctly set up will be formally given; c) the Constitutional Amendment passed last Sunday will be ratified (without a SC ratification, the amendment will only become law in another four weeks or so).

Given all the above as being correct, it pretty much means that our Government, acting together, are effectively boycotting the elections and preventing rightful citizens to vote — their most important right in the CDS, and perhaps the only one that warrants serious consideration.

So, to protest against the situation, I'm calling for a peaceful Protest March for Thursday, November 17th, starting at 2 PM. This requires Executive approval, which I will send in a notecard to our Chancellor shortly, and expect approval to be granted. We don't have a huge history in protest marches against Government, but we at least one, long time ago, when the Guild protested for the right to be paid for the public works. A much less important issue than the general actions, but it certainly kicked Government to take action!

The proposed itinerary for the Protest March, to be reviewed by the Executive as to its feasibility, is the following:

Neufreistadt, Marktplatz: gathering point
Alpine Meadow
Monastery
Locus Amoenus
Colonia Nova, Praetorium: end of march

The demands are simple:

1) We Want Elections Now! Put the booths out, let us vote! We've already missed half the alloted time for the election!
2) We want a formal explanation of why the fundamental right to vote has been revoked by Government without giving a real reason (forums, rumours, gossip, drama don't count — only official Government statements are valid reasons)
3) We want an answer why the usual election procedure was not followed, since we had everything to go ahead: we had a list of 12 candidates for RA, 2 for Chancellor; they were all duly announced in the proper time and publicly posted as required; we had a citizens list; the server was supposedly operational, at least on Friday; the time of the election is set by the Constitution; and there has been campaigning (even though weaker than usual, with little room for debating). So what prevented the elections to go ahead? Who decided that they had the power to change the procedures at a whim without giving public notion?

We don't want elections starting on the 19th, in January, or any other silly date. We want elections now, which is what we are promised as a Constitutional right.

Join us. We might not achieve anything, but at least we will have some fun posting pictures to the CDS Flickr group

I'm in - at least in spirit. In the real world, there has also been called a real world protest march at about the same time - LOL! must be everything in alignment, here, there, everywhere, virtual and real.

Gwyn,

I believe your analysis of events and how they should have been handled is substantially correct. Therefore please count me as one of the protesters at the event tomorrow. Unfortunately I will be working rl so only there in spirit and therefore unavailable for the photos.

Ceasar

I will try to be there, work schedule allowing. Tomorrow looks fairly busy.

Gwyneth Llewelyn wrote:

After shortly logging in, I've noticed that the voting booths are still not in place.

So, to protest against the situation, I'm calling for a peaceful Protest March for Thursday, November 17th, starting at 2 PM. This requires Executive approval, which I will send in a notecard to our Chancellor shortly, and expect approval to be granted. We don't have a huge history in protest marches against Government, but we at least one, long time ago, when the Guild protested for the right to be paid for the public works. A much less important issue than the general actions, but it certainly kicked Government to take action!

We don't want elections starting on the 19th, in January, or any other silly date. We want elections now, which is what we are promised as a Constitutional right.

Join us. We might not achieve anything, but at least we will have some fun posting pictures to the CDS Flickr group

I'm definitely with you in spirit, but unfortunately I have a RL commitment that will keep me otherwise occupied.

But if you decide to occupy the Platz, I'll definitely be there

Cindy

Count me in! We need a government that respects rule of law!

Gwyn, we can't put out voting booths without a valid and certified list of citizens who can vote. We just got that today. Now the qualified voters and qualified candidates have to be programmed in and it has to be tested. Voting will commence on Saturday, November 19.

Delia Lake wrote:

Gwyn, we can't put out voting booths without a valid and certified list of citizens who can vote. We just got that today. Now the qualified voters and qualified candidates have to be programmed in and it has to be tested. Voting will commence on Saturday, November 19.

Ah --

So am I to take from this that the "technical problem" that prevented voting from starting last Saturday was that there was a political problem in the form of a challenge to the previously certified SC list of citizens and candidates rather than a problem with the programming of the voting system itself? That is completely irregular. When the Constitution allowed for a delay of voting for a technical problem, it was not intended that such technical problem to be in the form of this kind of political manipulation.

Shame on you, SC. You have failed in your fundamental and only function -- to uphold the laws and Constitution of the CDS.

Beathan

Well it is late and the forum ate a posting as I had not followed the practice of pasting from a text editor.

Naturally, Gwyn, I have no objection to your protest march. Hope it goes well.

The rest I will recompose tomorrow.

Tor

Delia Lake wrote:

Gwyn, we can't put out voting booths without a valid and certified list of citizens who can vote. We just got that today. Now the qualified voters and qualified candidates have to be programmed in and it has to be tested. Voting will commence on Saturday, November 19.

I have to say that I'm with Delia on this. How in the world can you have an election without a clear and definitive list of citizens? Forget the issue of whether certain candidates are qualified (if you insist).... having an election with a vague list of voters is guaranteed to tear a community apart much faster than questions about candidates' qualifications.

You will of course say... "I accuse you (in the current dispute... anyone who has labored on administering our rules) of dereliction of duty for not preparing the voter lists on time!" But as Trebor points out elsewhere, do you really know what you are saying?? You don't.

The citizenship qualification laws are a mass of contradictions, exacerbated in this cycle by the incorrect qualification dates posted by one of our esteemed citizens. Traditionally, the SC has come to me before each election process and asked "who is a citizen"... doing so because in general citizenship is based on land ownership and tier payment, and it is assumed that I'm the one who knows the most about those. Each election I protest to the SC that I am not qualified to determine such a list... all I can convey is the information I have, and point out the discrepancies and problem areas. Citizenship determination is a morass... primarily because the RA has never been able to come up with a clear and single definition... one which can be consistently applied using the tools we have in SL. This is NOT a new issue... citizenship definition has been argued since the formation of the CDS, well before it was called the CDS.

It was I who wrote the original email that has been so much discussed. Why? Because at the close of the period which we thought was the qualification for voting rights, it became clear that there were huge problems with citizenship counting, primarily because of the influx of dozens of new citizens in the weeks before that supposed deadline. Dates of first ownership were unclear. Dates at which partners became citizens were unclear. And then the bomb hit... someone pointed out that even the date of qualification was wrong. We clearly had no basis for defining a voter list at that point.

And, please. A little self-honesty here. Jon needs a black-and-white voter list in order to program the voting booths. Everyone knows that. The issue is not why the voting booths were not set up... certainly nothing at all to do with Tor. The issue was that we had no handle at all on who was a citizen. And without that... sorry guys... but there is no election process.

So can we cut out all the political bs and identify where the real problem is? There is only one thing to blame here, and that fault has been with us for years. The citizenship definition is a disaster... a morass... and until the citizens of this place, throught their elected representatives, correct this, we'll see this problem repeat over and over.

Sudane...............................

I am very confused.

Karensunshine Emerald and Jo Renierd were citizens until November 15 they are off the list now ? So which dates count now ? Which ever ones make your list the way you want it? or random.. or what ?? I agree .... this list

The partner of a LA member says they have never paid the 250 L tier either. In fact noone who doesnt have a box that they personally pay should be a citizen in cDSat all.. the law was written clearly to requre any citizen to log in and personally pay the box at lest one time permonth unless that was changed recently.

There is no consitenecy in this list about which dates they are using to determine citizenship except it seems to be completely random and difffernt days are applied to different people.

And one person on the list had a clear lapse in parcel ownership during the one 28 day that was going to be counted.
Is there a good workaround on that one too ?

Well I see that we still do not have a clear start of the election process.. so does this list that is obviously in question also stop the process like the last one did ?? or are we going with this because its suits someones pupose. This will leave a huge percentage of the population unrepresented for six months... I think nearing half of them.. I call for a complete do over.

cleopatraxigalia wrote:

Karensunshine Emerald and Jo Renierd were citizens until November 15 they are off the list now ?

Karensunshine Emerald (with partner Jo Renierd) abandoned their parcel. That's a conscious act... not neglect or oversight. In doing so they became no longer citizens. Are we supposed to include people on our voter list who declare that they no longer are citizens of this community?

Sudane.......................

Hi,

I am probably also going to join (unless I am zzz) because I think elections are good things and it is always good to ask that as many people can vote and participate as possible, regardless of rules. The fact that there is significant dissent among the population about the issue would hurt the mandate of the new Government. I don't care for explanations (because it is divisive and like Rosie says we should all be friends and that is the most important thing, all is well that ends well also), but hope the election will allow everyone now in the CDS who wants to vote or be elected to be able to do so. I hope that nobody will take it as a personal attack, it isn't and I don't even know who is on what side of it except maybe a few.

I am glad the Chancelor allows the protest, and am doubtful of the general right right of a Government to disallow an adequately moderate non-disruptive protest (not talking about this protest, but all possible protests). Perhaps the law should be that the Chancelor can only disallow a disruptive protest, so that there is a qualification and then if the protest does go against the Chancelor order then this becomes a court case after the fact; thus the protest right would be stronger (I do not talk about this protest but about the general law, please understand.) Maybe this is already the law (?)

OK but why is the list for the chancellor election and the citizen election the same ??? We had to pass ammendments for the RA voting list ?? Did we do that for the Chancellor too ?

Sudane Erato wrote:

cleopatraxigalia wrote:

Karensunshine Emerald and Jo Renierd were citizens until November 15 they are off the list now ?

Karensunshine Emerald (with partner Jo Renierd) abandoned their parcel. That's a conscious act... not neglect or oversight. In doing so they became no longer citizens. Are we supposed to include people on our voter list who declare that they no longer are citizens of this community?

Sudane.......................

they abandoned the land yesterday .. Nov 16th, 2011

Well, its an issue of dates Sudane, what date do we freeze time and say .. these people are counted as citizens for the nummber needed to have the seats in the RA determined. Do we only count who leaves and not who is added up until the end ? Aftrer voting starts then can we take out people who abandon during the votes ?? or what ? I am jsut confused as the dates you count who in for what. And again. is there two lists, or why did we need an amendment if it only addresses RA and not the chancellor?

I am just asking, Because also people are on the list who left parcels durnign the 28 days, didnt have one again until the 21st of Oct, when an RA member gave them a plot of theirs to have ............

.and there is the question also of the people who are on the list but state they have never paid 250 L to CDS to be a member.. this is the partner of a member of the exectutive team. I have the chat saved. What about that ?? I am just confused.