Rosie Gray wrote:Yes, I agree that the important piece to action here is what the SC requested - addressing resignations. (While I do think that we could go to 7 members on the RA, I don't think that we need more than that at this time; and I agree it's not a priority.) Pat's analogy of RL representation is quite accurate and puts this into perspective.
Thus, I return to my original posting:
1) Within the first two months of an election, if there are candidates that ran but were not elected, that we accept the next-in-line candidate from the vote count. If there are no other candidates, that we hold a 'simple' (1 vote per citizen) by-election. That candidates be given 1 week to campaign, and citizens 1 week to vote from there.
2) From 3 months of an election to 5 months; hold a 'simple' (1 vote per citizen) by-election, parameters same as #2
3) The final (sixth) month before next election; that the RA function with the existing RA members.
Responding to Rosie because her post encompasses things mentioned by others.
Number 3 is no problem at all - the last month of a term might mean one meeting having an empty seat.
Number 1 and 2 still pose the timeframe challenge that was part of the reason for the SC request. *Any* election, no matter whether it is STV or 'simple' vote tally must take 28 days, plus the length of time the polls are open, as a minimum. This is the law from which all election dates, regular or by-election are calculated - 28 days of land ownership to qualify to vote or to run for office. If a holiday falls during this time or the census is delayed etc, it could well be 40 days.
As an example: If a resignation were received on Sept 15th -the middle of the 4th month of a term - a census would be requested for the 16th. All being well, and Sudane able to conduct it on such short notice, it would be done on the 16th ( possibly resulting in complaints from people that they were disenfranchised by having no warning to set their land to privately owned, instead of group, for the census taking or to check that they were not in arrears on tier). If the census is done on the 16th, the earliest the polls can open would be Oct 14th. Even shortening the time allowed to vote to 72 hours the earliest a new RA member would be announced would be Oct 16th; roughly 5 weeks before the end of the term.
To add a little confusion to the pot, the census to qualify to run for office, the call for candidates and the census to qualify to vote in the next *regular* election would occur during this time - e.g, the relevant dates for the election of the 20th RA were:
Qualification deadline to run for office : 12 noon SLT October 1 (census generated on this date by Sudane)
Qualification deadline for right to vote: 12 noon SLT October 11 (census generated on this date by Sudane)
Deadline for declaration to run: 12 noon SLT November 1
and the call for candidates went out on October 7th. While the call for candidates *could* be delayed, I do not believe that is desirable - shortening the timeframe to encourage potential candidates to 14 days, when we often struggle to have enough running to fill the seats, seems unproductive.
If the decision about by-elections includes an actual election in any form, here is a possible solution:
1) A census done monthly and byelections designated to use the most recent. The 28 days would then count forward from the census date, and could mean a new RA member was announced as quickly as 12 days and with a maximum delay of 31 days. This means adding adding a substantial amount of work for Sudane, although hopefully that work could be done by someone she designates. It might also be beneficial to include specific timeframes :" the most recent census will be used, challenges to the list must be received within 4 days, the call for candidates will be 4 days, there will be 3 days of campaigning, the polls will be open for 72 hours." along with a reminder that staying aware of government activity through the Forums or inworld notices is the responsibility of each citizen.
Calli