Does the election schedule work well for us?

[Cindy Ecksol]

There seems to be enough support for such a change that we can discuss having a bill for it in the Representative Assembly.

For me personally, I think it could be good to move the election times, but I also have a concern about the RA voting to extend its own term. Two solutions to this problem I can see are:
1) We could have the decision come into effect for the next RA, from January to November. This would make it so the current RA members would not be included in the change (unless they are reelected this December), and the community would have time to prepare for the schedule change.
2) A referendum vote could also be a possibility, as a question like "Should the election times be moved? Yes/No." This would allow the whole CDS community to have a say in the decision.

As a first offering, I will suggest this wording for a bill:
"Amendement to NL 7-5, the Electoral Reform Amendment Act
The election schedule shall be revised in NL 7-5, the Electoral Reform Amendment Act, so elections take place the first full week of November and the first full week of May, if this revision passes a CDS-wide referendum vote by greater than 50% with the wording: 'Shall the CDS election schedule be moved so the elections take place the first week of November and the first week of May? Yes or No."

NL 7-5, the Electoral Reform Amendment Act, can be found here: http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=207
The current CDS election times are described there in §1.2, paragraph 4.

Hmmm. Legally once the RA agrees (by a 2/3 majority) to the first part of this statement, the second part becomes superfluous. Or is the wording some kind of a double negative that got me turned around?

In any case, if we want a referendum, it seems like we should introduce to RA a measure to add a referendum question to the ballot FIRST (which only requires a majority), and then have the next RA consider the results of the referendum and act upon them as appropriate. I don't believe there is any provision for binding referendums in CDS, so creating one "ad hoc" might not survive a constitutional challenge.

Cindy

[Sonja Strom]

In my proposed wording I did not intend a double-negative, but a confirmation of the amendment by referendum. So there was the amendment itself, and then the wording of the referendum question that would confirm the amendment. The small and easy-to-overlook word "if" in the middle is the key to understanding it.

Cindy is right, we are not allowed to have referendum questions be binding. Good point Cindy - I forgot about that. So now I will propose this wording for the bill:
"On the next previously scheduled ballot this referendum question shall be included: 'Shall the CDS election schedule be moved so the elections take place the first full week of November and the first full week of May? Aye or Nay."

For those who would like to see the law about referendum questions, it is posted here: http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... 7&start=30
I looked for it in the CDS Code of Laws (to be found here http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=codeoflaws), but am not finding it there. Maybe it is there, but if so I don't see it.

[Rose Springvale]

Last year, our January candidates had to declare their candidacy by December 26. That meant our factions, presumably, had to develop their platforms and recruit candidates, as well as all the citizens qualifying the faction for the campaign, during December. End of terms for students, Year end deadlines for business people, major family and holiday commitments for many others... created an environment when one of our most important functions as a democracy, our elections,was not a priority for many people. We had similar issues with the July elections.

We had only 39 voters in the July 2009 election from the original CDS sims.(Arguably we could have had 43, but 4 CDS citizens who were "dual AA citizens" did not vote) January 2009 election saw 43 voters. July 2008... 48 voters. This trend is not the right direction.

The next election will be the first election the Al Andalus citizens will participate in. We most likely will have four factions running, and existing factions will most likely need to recruit new people. Don't we want to make our process as accessible as we can and improve those voter turnout numbers? It is only an administrative change, and surely there is a broad enough cross section of the community in our Representative Assembly to query their constituents and handle it without referendum.

I'd humbly ask for THIS RA to vote on a change of the election schedule and implement it next term. Or, please, turn down the idea and move on to something else.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think this is a great idea for all the reasons mentioned so far in the thread. Our current election schedule does not work well for us and a change would be very welcome.

I share the concerns that Sonja has expressed about the RA voting to extend its own term though. It would set a very bad precedent and we should avoid setting bad precedents Instead, the RA could pass a constitutional amendment which will bring in the new schedule after the next scheduled elections. That way, the citizens know they will be voting for a 'Long Parliament' and that RA members will be sitting for more than six months.

I'm not clear why Sonja has proposed we hold a consultative referendum before the RA should take a decision. I don't know what value this would add given that there already seems to be a consensus in favour of the change. If this RA enacts it but does not benefit from it by extending its own term then I can't see why a referendum would be needed. This could easily be decided at the next scheduled RA meeting.

Our election schedule would then look like this:

• January 2010 'Long Parliament' 12th RA
  November 2010 13th RA
  May 2011 14th RA
  November 2011 15th RA

[Rose Springvale]

Pat,
Why wouldn't they vote themselves as a "short" RA? Either the current one could end their term in november, or the next one could end in May or April... seems unlikely we'll find people willing to serve 11 months.. and if we do, then maybe annual elections make more sense.

Has anyone looked at that actual dates for this year's December elections?

[Cindy Ecksol]

Pat,
Why wouldn't they vote themselves as a "short" RA? Either the current one could end their term in november, or the next one could end in May or April... seems unlikely we'll find people willing to serve 11 months.. and if we do, then maybe annual elections make more sense.

Has anyone looked at that actual dates for this year's December elections?

Let's see..."beginning at noon SLT on the Saturday before the 16th of the month prior to the new RAs taking office. " Right now new RA takes office Feb 1...that puts the start of elections on 9 Jan running through the 16th. Which puts the candidate declaration deadline ("not less than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls") on 25 December I believe that would also be the date to certify viability of factions. The official citizen list would be certified 28 days before 9 Jan which is 12 December.

So if the current RA votes itself a SHORT session this term, we move that up a month and the new RA takes office on Jan 1. Then the dates become:

Start of elections: 12 December (through 19 December)
Faction certification and candidate declaration deadline: 17 November
Citizen list certification: 14 November

And the next campaign would be:

New term starts: July 1
Start of elections: 12 June (thru 19 June)
Faction certification and candidate declaration deadline: 28 May
Citizen list certification: 15 May

The only problem with this schedule is the Thanksgiving holiday in the US, but that's pretty minor compared to the Christmas/New Year's week (and the run-up to it that keeps us all hopping) that falls in the current campaign period. One nice side benefit is that elections are all over the week before Christmas which gives us a nice opportunity to celebrate with a seasonal ball. Not that we need an excuse, but we're always in the mood for a party at the end of the year so why not take advantage of it?

No RA meeting this week, but if Sonja's bill can be re-phrased I see no reason we should not take this up on the 27th and pass it. As Pat points out, if we SHORTEN our term, there's no conflict of interest for the current RA. And there certainly does seem to be a consensus that we ought to move the election schedule. And I for one would certainly appreciate not having to be worrying about certification dates and the start of campaigning in the week running up to Christmas...and then the week between Christmas and New Year's.

Cindy
<edited to correct dates for the revised spring election schedule>

[Claude Desmoulins]

If this is what the RA wishes to do, the simplest way to do it would be to replace February with January and August with July in Article 1 Section 2, paragraph 4. If the terms are to be the same length, they would need to begin 1 January and 1 July. The schedule Cindy posted would make the January RA last five months and the June RA 7.

[Cindy Ecksol]

If this is what the RA wishes to do, the simplest way to do it would be to replace February with January and August with July in Article 1 Section 2, paragraph 4. If the terms are to be the same length, they would need to begin 1 January and 1 July. The schedule Cindy posted would make the January RA last five months and the June RA 7.

Whoops!

My bad....I'll fix the post

Cindy