Election Commission — Recommendations (final draft)

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Hmm. Very good point about suggesting an alternative to the Chancellor voting... you're right, we should avoid simply minorities. Borda/STV are a possibility; another alternative is simply to see if any candidate has more than 50% (+1) of the votes, and if not, do a second run just with the top two candidates.

[Rose Springvale]

Actually, in this particular situation, i'm opposed to all the complicating counting methods. Simple majority has worked when we selected a chancellor in the RA, and i think we should actually LET the people elect the chancellor. I am 100% in favor of a simple majority BY the people.

Pat has asked why ... the chancellor position has morphed into one of great power. Every time we want to do something in RA, whether it is divide a parcel, change collection policies, revitalize the portal, we are told "that's an executive function." If the Exec is going to have the power, then the exec needs to be accountable to the people he/she serves.

I can relate personal experience if necessary, but encourage CDS to remember that in the future, the chancellor, if left to the RA will be chosen by 3-4 people. Is that really democratic for a sim project of 70 people?

[Arria Perreault]

Before to change the way the Chancellor is elected, we have to take in account all consequences of this change. I am not totally opposed to this change, but I would like to see the real advantages CDS will get. I don't think we are finished with factions. There are still factions and candidates who run under their flag. A observer of our political life sees quickly that we are polarized in two blocks that opposed on the way a SL community should be managed. All votes, elections and debates are confirming this assertion. It is clear that each group will find and present a candidate (to the RA or to the public). There will be no big difference between a Chancellor elected by a RA which represents these two groups or the universal suffrage. Like other people, I don't see this change as a necessity and I don't see what it can improve in our system.
I see more issues with it in fact. The first one is that the legitimation of the universal suffrage will give to the Chancellor an extraordinary power. The Chancellor can veto any law voted by the RA. The RA can remove the Chancellor only with a 2/3 majority. If this law is voted, the term of the Chancellor will be on two RA terms. We can see the following scenario: people are not happy with the Chancellor after six months. They will give to the RA another majority that doesn't share the views of the Chancellor. Let say that this majority is short. The Chancellor can veto all laws voted by this RA, but the Assembly cannot remove it. In France, this situation that happened already twice is named "cohabitation". It is rather a blocking situation.
I don't see also how the RA can control a Chancellor with so much power and the legitimation of the universal suffrage. The only tool the RA has currently is the revocation.
What is the reason to limit the number of terms? It's nice when the Chancellor is not good. It's a shame, when the Chancellor is excellent. Should not we trust the vote of citizen ? At least can we not have a higher limitation, like 2 or 3 terms? This limitation is easy to avoid if a group negotiate the position among their members.
This limitation brings also some questions:

- if a Chancellor is elected and then removed during the term, can this person be candidate for the next election of the Chancellor?
- if a Chancellor is removed and a new one is elected, can the new Chancellor (who will not serve an entire term) run?

The conditions to run for the position of Chancellor should also be more deeply considered. I see two points:

- can a RA member run for the position of Chancellor ? we had already this case twice and there is no clear response.
- conflicts of interests. All the candidates should declare their interests in CDS or outside CDS. They should not have a similar (governmental) position in an other SL community. The Chancellor is responsible for our foreign affairs. He/she can have to negotiate an agreement with an other community. It is important that he/she doesn't have any personal interest in such negotiations, but only the interests of the CDS. We can always trust people, but in my opinion it is better when the law is clear.

This case shows the limitations of the systems of the committees and the importance of discussions in the plenum of the RA. The committees focus only on a topic and don't see all the consequences of a law or of a constitutional change. This is the responsibility of the plenum. In my opinion, this pieces of legislation regarding the Chancellor are not ready. There is no text to vote, no list of possible changes in other laws. There are lacks. I would prefer to see the Commission work a bit with the inputs of the plenum. As the vote of saturday has shown, a 2/3 majority is not easy to get. The legislation work is a long-term effort, not a bug fixing action ... As RA member, I don't intend to sign a blank cheque.