Ensuring We Hold Elections

[Patroklus Murakami]

At yesterday's RA meeting (transcript here) I raised the issue of what happens when we have fewer candidates than seats for RA elections. After a discussion I was asked to start a new thread on the forums to continue the debate.

We have had at least two occasions that I can recall in our recent past when fewer candidates have come forward by the nomination deadline than there are seats available. On one occasion we had only one candidate declare! On that occasion I think we had an emergency extension to the nomination deadline and we held an election subsequently. On other occasions the people who came forward were 'acclaimed' as RA members without an election being held. At the time we discussed possible measures which would make it less likely that this would happen - allowing voters to 'write in' the names of candidates not on the ballot paper, extending the deadline for declaration - but no measure has been enacted.

I think it is a serious problem when a democratic community like ours ends up with people being elected 'by acclamation' instead of by the popular vote. It should not be that 'those who just turn up' get elected, voters should always be able to select the candidates they want and reject those they don't want. One proposal that would help would be to fix the size of the RA at a smaller number e.g. five seats and I have proposed that elsewhere. But, even then, you might only get four coming forward and they would all just become RA members automatically.

Do others agree? Several people at the last RA meeting thought that there really wasn't a problem - we should just acclaim the successful candidates and hold by-elections (if needed) for the vacant seats. (But are people happy for that to happen when only one person comes forward? As has already happened!)

Here are some thoughts on what we could do if we wanted to take action:

• 1. Automatically extend the nomination deadline by a week if there are fewer candidates than seats.
  This has the benefit of simplicity. It would allow people who were thinking about standing (but not 100% sure or keen) to see who came forward and step up if needed to ensure an election. It would mean less time to set up the software to run the ballot but should still give enough time to make that happen.

  2. Allow 'write in' candidates.
  This would give a great deal of freedom to voters. We would need to consider how it was implemented though and how much rewriting of the software Jon Seattle uses to run our elections would be needed. We would also have to consider what happens if voters misspell names e.g. 'Partoklus' or 'Ron453' instead of 'ron453'.

  3. Hold an election for c-1 seats (where c = number of candidates) and a by-election to fill the remaining seats.
  I think this was Trebor's first suggestion at the RA meeting. If you get 5 candidates for 7 seats, run an election for 4 of the seats and then a by-election shortly after for the remaining 3.

I'm sure other solutions are possible! What do others think?

[Rosie Gray]

I don't see any point in extending deadlines so that people who were "not sure or keen" could step up at the last minute as candidates. This seems more like deciding to run because the last minute candidate doesn't approve of at least one of the candidates who declared within the announced time frame, rather than thinking they would like to offer their services to the community. If you have a deadline, you have to stick with it, or why have a deadline in the first place?

In the real world, candidates are often declared acclaimed because of the same circumstances.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Rosie

I can see how that would work when you get almost enough candidates to fill seats. Say 4 out of 7 or something like that.

But what about when only one or two come forward (as has happened)? Would you be happy for one person to be the Representative Assembly until a by-election could be held to fill the vacant seats?

[Beathan]

I would rather have a truncated RA elected at a regular election than extend the dates and thus extend the term of an RA without an election. We need to hold elections, and regular elections, as scheduled. Extending existing term is the opposite of holding elections -- and the result is a serious loss in democratic processes.

In other words, I would rather have an inadequate election than no election at all. The solution to apathy is not tyranny (although, as we saw with the protests last time, tyranny does effectively reduce apathy).

Beathan

[Bells Semyorka]

1. I feel the extension of a deadline is one that we should not alter, ideally I would love to see fixed election dates similar to a holiday dates. We can consider these CDS national Holidays and have them fixed so we don't have the calculations, time extensions to worry about and simplify the process to make it more streamlined. If anything we should provide more publicity in world, on the forums to entice candidates. Perhaps making the amount of time to declare and decide longer, but not changing the actual date it is closed.

2. Write in candidates is an idea I do not support as well. When someone has decided to run they do so with the commitment in mind that you want to be helpful and be active within the community. Having someone name be written in does not provide a good sense of commitment from the person who is elected through this means. They did not have the planning and foresight to submit their name during the designated amount of time. It can call to question their motives for running.

3. I see no reason to change the way we currently have our voting process set up for the amount of seats in RA.

Bells Semyorka

[Patroklus Murakami]

I would rather have a truncated RA elected at a regular election than extend the dates and thus extend the term of an RA without an election. We need to hold elections, and regular elections, as scheduled. Extending existing term is the opposite of holding elections -- and the result is a serious loss in democratic processes.

In other words, I would rather have an inadequate election than no election at all. The solution to apathy is not tyranny (although, as we saw with the protests last time, tyranny does effectively reduce apathy).

Beathan

My proposal does not involve extending the existing term. If fewer candidates than seats come forward the deadline for nominations would be extended by a week. The election would take place at the scheduled time and the new RA would take office at the regular time.

I hear some people saying no change is needed. But we had an election in recent memory where only one person came forward and we had to bend the rules to ensure an election took place. What do people who oppose change suggest we do if this happens again?

[Beathan]

I would rather have a truncated RA elected at a regular election than extend the dates and thus extend the term of an RA without an election. We need to hold elections, and regular elections, as scheduled. Extending existing term is the opposite of holding elections -- and the result is a serious loss in democratic processes.

In other words, I would rather have an inadequate election than no election at all. The solution to apathy is not tyranny (although, as we saw with the protests last time, tyranny does effectively reduce apathy).

Beathan

My proposal does not involve extending the existing term. If fewer candidates than seats come forward the deadline for nominations would be extended by a week. The election would take place at the scheduled time and the new RA would take office at the regular time.

I hear some people saying no change is needed. But we had an election in recent memory where only one person came forward and we had to bend the rules to ensure an election took place. What do people who oppose change suggest we do if this happens again?

Ah -- Pat, I misunderstood. I fully support extensions of the nominating period to fill seats. Some citizens might not want to run for the RA, but would be willing to from a sense of civic duty if there weren't enough candidates. Such citizens are frequently the best members of the RA because they are there from a spirit of service untarnished by self-aggrandizement.

Beathan

[Rosie Gray]

Ah -- Pat, I misunderstood. I fully support extensions of the nominating period to fill seats. Some citizens might not want to run for the RA, but would be willing to from a sense of civic duty if there weren't enough candidates. Such citizens are frequently the best members of the RA because they are there from a spirit of service untarnished by self-aggrandizement.

Beathan

Beathan;
Are you insinuating that a person who puts themselves forward as a candidate during the designated appropriate time-frame is seeking self-aggrandizement? I find that both disingenuous and insulting to those of us who pay attention to things like time-frames, and practice such strange behaviours as planning ahead.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'd like to propose the following Constitutional Amendment to help ensure that we always hold elections for the Representative Assembly in future:

• Add to Article I, Section 2 after "Any citizen who is eligible to vote, at the time of nomination, may become a candidate by declaring themselves by a message to the Dean of the Scientific Council, within the time set by the Scientific Council for such nominations." the following text:

  "If there are fewer nominations than seats available when nominations close, the Dean will extend the time set for nominations by one week."

This will allow us to avoid the situation, as has occurred in our recent past, where too few candidates come forward and elections are not held.

I have suggested a schedule for future elections elsewhere. My proposal would not affect any of the dates for elections or the length of RA terms.

[Patroklus Murakami]

This proposal did not pass when discussed at the RA on 4 February. Transcript here.

[Beathan]

Beathan;
Are you insinuating that a person who puts themselves forward as a candidate during the designated appropriate time-frame is seeking self-aggrandizement? I find that both disingenuous and insulting to those of us who pay attention to things like time-frames, and practice such strange behaviours as planning ahead.

Rosie,

Why the paranoia and hostility? I neither said nor insinuated any such thing. I fully recognize that people who seek office within the time frames can well be, and usually are, motivated by good faith and public spirit. I was merely saying that I don't think that we should limit ourselves to such people -- and that people who agree to serve despite their personal desires (rather than because of them) are laudable. Surely I can praise one group without disparaging another.

Beathan