Ethics

[Robert Walpole]

I think the first route is preferable as it puts more power in the hands of our citizens to determine the outcome of the Chancellor election.

Pat,

If you truly want to be democratic, forget this indirect stuff of asking a duly elected RA representative to resign, hold a bi-election and then effectively let the winner choose the Chancellor. Let Cindy keep her seat if she wants. Have an election for Chancellor. Let the people decide who the chancellor should be. You can't be more impartial and democratic than that: the community can question the candidates, the candidates can put forth their visions and ideas, and the CDS citizens can elect THEIR Chancellor, not the RA's Chancellor. This would both break the RA deadlock, meet Cindy's wish for an open, consensual process, and give the Chacellor true democratic legitimacy and a really independent branch of government.

I won't hold my breath here either, though... You and your friends never much believed in real democracy, as opposed to the elective dictatorship of factions..... So no danger for you to be consistent with your own statement above and truly put "power in the hands of our citizens to determine the outcome of the Chancellor election"...

As things stand, there is no reason for Cindy to resign. She was elected directly by the CDS citizens. She deserves to be in the RA and is entitled by the constitution to cast her vote in the Chancellor's elections. She is breaking no rules or laws, nor their spirit. Sorry it doesn't suit your purposes, this time....

Robert

[Jon Seattle]

I won't hold my breath here either, though... You and your friends never much believed in real democracy, as opposed to the elective dictatorship of factions..... So no danger for you to be consistent with your own statement above and truly put "power in the hands of our citizens to determine the outcome of the Chancellor election"...

For the record, Pat was the first person to suggest the use of STV. There was quite a bit of debate about it at the time. STV greatly decreases the role of factions. Pat's first post was:
http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =STV#p5187 I am very glad he was very persistent in following through on this -- it has the potential to defuse some of today's conflicts.

As things stand, there is no reason for Cindy to resign. She was elected directly by the CDS citizens. She deserves to be in the RA and is entitled by the constitution to cast her vote in the Chancellor's elections. She is breaking no rules or laws, nor their spirit. Sorry it doesn't suit your purposes, this time....

Moon ran for Chancellor and resigned from the RA simultaneously because what she considered a conflict of interest. Even before Moon had officially announced her candidacy, Michel posted his concerns and even asked the SC to rule against her running while in the RA, see:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... Moon#p7925

[Robert Walpole]

Jon,

My petition to the SC asked it to rule on two questions:

"1. Can an individual who was elected to th RA stand for Chancellor?

2. If so, can this individual vote for him/herself?"

The SC chose never to rule on the substance of these questions, and until and unless it does, nothing prohibits an RA candidate from doing so.

The conflict of interest was rendered acute by the fact that RA members were not directly elected, but only though faction lists, and once won, these seats became "faction property": by first helping her faction win RA seats, then moving to the Chancellor's position and bequeathing her seat to a non-elected party member appointed by the party boss, Moon indeed created a conflict of interest: securing her faction an extra vote for the position she would be running for.

The question does not arise now as individuals elected to the RA were directly elected and not on the basis of their faction membership. This makes all the difference. Cindly's empty seat would not be bequeathed to an unelected faction member who would vote for her, but, as Pat correctly noted, be subject of an independent popular vote.

Thank you for clarfying this important point.

As to Pat's role in proposing STV, he did so only under pressure and then changed his mind. Be it as it may, CDS now has STV and there is little point in having a debate as to whom it owes this to. At the end of the day, the RA voted for it and that should suffice in satisfying the egos of all those who played a part- large or small- in bringing about this outcome.

If you all are such big STV fans and wish to give more democratic power to the CDS citizens, as Pat claims, why not use this system to elect the Chancellor instead of having Cindy resign the RA and then elect a new RA member to break the RA deadlock? This makes little sense and is not very democratic. If Cindy wishes to run from the RA, that would be her choice and there would be no issue of cconflict of interest.

As things stand, it remains clear that unless the SC rules otherwise, Cindy can stand for Chancellor and can vote for herself, the circumstances being sufficiently different from 2007 as not to invoke any conflict of interest arguments. This is by far the preferable option in the short term, if you want a Chancellor to start working right away as opposed to weeks or even months from now - and thus, in effect, extending Sonja's mandate for the forseeable future. For the longer term, of course, direct Chancellor election using STV is clearly the superior alternative for reasons outlined above. To reconcile both timelines, Cindy could now cast her vote and decide the Chancellorship, then the RA could pass a Direct Chancellor Election Bill and ensure this would be the last time the decision would be subject to RA partisan politics instead of being decided directly and democratically, by all CDS citzens. This would be a nice way to reach the more consensual agreement cindy was looking for.

Again, I shall not hold my breath....

Be it all as it may...

It seems the tone of the discussion has shifted from personal attacks, poilical posturing and procedural maneuvering to discussing real, substantive issues in a civilised and constructive manner. Even Arias and Pat seem to have realised this is by far the better way to go and have adopted a more constructive tone and attitude. The only reason I have intervened in this debate is because I do believe in the power of the best argument and hated to see such important issues resolved by bullying and underhanded tactics. I hope you all can continue along these lines so I can return to my "slumber", as Pat so aptly put it.

[Jon Seattle]

Since I am working very very long weeks these days, I don't have time to address all of your points, but I wanted to answer one of your questions:

If you all are such big STV fans and wish to give more democratic power to the CDS citizens, as Pat claims, why not use this system to elect the Chancellor instead of having Cindy resign the RA and then elect a new RA member to break the RA deadlock? This makes little sense and is not very democratic. If Cindy wishes to run from the RA, that would be her choice and there would be no issue of cconflict of interest.

I am not interested in taking any stand on Cindy's candidacy. But since I was involved in the negotiation that led to the creation of the position of Chancellor, I will comment just on that.

One of the really interesting things about the CDS is that it mixes both US and European (several flavors) and Canadian political culture. We were trying to avoid a sort of "Big Man" (or woman) system where decisions of policy and planning would amount to a decision to support a particular leader to the exclusion of other voices. There was at the time talk of "Bikini Contest" systems (granted the image of Claude in a bikini was really strange.) There was a lot of back-and-forth talk about euro-style Chancellors or Prime Ministers, leaders of a winning faction, vs. US style presidents. We ended up with a system, like the CDS really, that combined both views, and emphatically did not emphasize factions.

I think in the end, we did the right thing. Too many emerging virtual institutions end up being led by a single individual who makes all the decisions and does much of the organizing. This is partly because it is much much harder to establish trust between individuals in an environment where we cannot really see and hear each other in the full fidelity of real life. Getting over this trust problem is, I think, the most important obstacle to building real democratic institutions in SL and on the Web. People are quite naturally afraid that someone else will come and take their autonomy and opportunities in a society that matters to them. It is difficult to form more natural collations without that trust, so the "big man" (or woman) steps into the power vacuum.

On the matter of Pat's position, I have a very clear understanding of where he stands, because I started by debating him in opposition to STV idea, but was eventually convinced. Basically I said, doesn't this weaken factions? And and he said, more or less, sure. I thought allowing a group to implement try its vision of the future (with groups taking turns, as they do in most democratic systems) was the clearest way to try out different schemes and coordinated plans. I was wrong (and Pat right) because the matter of building trust is more important.

Here is part of our original debate on the Chancellor role (And Moon's characterization of this as a potential "Bikini contest" still makes me laugh). Remember, at the time the political system with the very powerful "Old Guild" taking the executive role had just collapsed and we were trying to decide what to fill it with:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... ikini#p765

And also an excerpt from an election debate on 13 Jan 2007:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php? ... =STV#p5208

Jon Seattle: We researched and debated some the alternatives and decided that single transferable vote (STV) was the best approach for the CDS. After electoral reform every citizen will get to choose between the candidates, not just faction members.
Jon Seattle: After all the confusion we finally have gone back to a court that has five judges drawn from three factions and from all walks of life. These are well trusted, extraordinary bright, and careful people.
Jon Seattle: I know the court of the Scientific Council will do their best and understand citizen's concerns. Yes, the court needs changes, but lets make those changes in a careful, gradual process so that the court always retains basic public confidence.
Jon Seattle: To continue the spirit of our community should be our major goal. I am sure the CSDF is as committed as any faction. We disagree with those who work through division and defamation. The CDS is a community of volunteers and gifted amateurs. While professional help is always welcome we shouldn't lose sight of our roots and make our government distant from the people.

[Robert Walpole]

Jon,

Thanks for your historical perspective. In brief, a direct Chancellor's election based on an STV system in no more or less a "bikini contest" than was the last election using this system, when 13 individuals were elected on their own merits. The checks and balances between the RA, SC and the Chancellor's Office would ensure there would be no "one-person show" whilst at the same time investing the Chancellor with a democratic legitimacy separate from that of the RA it does not possess today. For those worried about a one-person take-over of the CDS, this is a perfect antidote -unless you assume, of course, that one person can marshall a majority of all CDS voters to vote for a preferred candidate. In which case well, democracies are like that: if you get a majority of votes for a position, you tend to get elected. Funny that, no?

In re: discussions about the STV system, they were triggered by CARE's founding in December 2006 and its platform and calls for direct elections for both RA and Chancellor candidates, which then triggered the debate in CSDF about adopting the STV voting system. This was then buried for the next three years by various CSDF / DPU / SP administrations until finally adopted by the last RA. But that's all old history and pretty much irrelevant today other than for those interested in CDS history.

In any case, Pat's proposal to have Cindy resign, then have a bi-election for a new RA member which will clearly be fought of the Chancellor issue exclusively, and then let this person cast the deciding vote is truly a very complex and undemocratic way to resolve the issue. Above all , it really would be an indirect "beauty contest": votes will be given to an RA candidate depending on which Chancellorship candidate they would decide to endorse.

Why not have a real debate instead, on vision and policies, between the Chancellor candidates themselves, rather than their RA surrogates' commitment to vote for one or the other? As I mentioned before, this is the only truly elegant and consensual and democratic solution for the long-term.

To avoid wasting half this term without a new Chancellor, and thus in violation of the constitution, Cindy should cast her vote, a Chancellor elected for the last time by the RA, a byelection held for her now vacant seat, and then a Chancellor Direct Election bill introduced and passed to avoid such situations from arising in the future.

But that's my point of view. Both the above two solutions are reasonable and address issues raised by all involved in this debate.

[Jon Seattle]

In re: discussions about the STV system, they were triggered by CARE's founding in December 2006 and its platform and calls for direct elections for both RA and Chancellor candidates, which then triggered the debate in CSDF about adopting the STV voting system. This was then buried for the next three years by various CSDF / DPU / SP administrations until finally adopted by the last RA. But that's all old history and pretty much irrelevant today other than for those interested in CDS history.

The historical record is pretty clear on this -- especially since all of the CSDF meeting transcripts were posted. Pat proposed STV to the CSDF and then posted the proposal on the forum. CARE's main platform plank at the time was re-instatment of the judicial system. It is true, that once Pat had posted his proposal, you offered to support it, but only in exchange for support for a presidental-style elected leader.

I have myself lobbied against the old faction electoral system and for STV for many years. I do think that STV is definitely the right option for the CDS, and I tend to think that a strong central leader, called Chancellor, President, or even Chief Justice is a bad idea. We have much to gain if we can build a democratic system that is directly responsive to citizens, and an executive branch that sees itself as mainly aimed at effective administration and implementation of a vision for the CDS that is created and endorsed by the public, rather than that vision being handed down to them. The CDS has many smart people, if we can figure out the trust thing, we can lead ourselves.

[Patroklus Murakami]

In re: discussions about the STV system, they were triggered by CARE's founding in December 2006 and its platform and calls for direct elections for both RA and Chancellor candidates, which then triggered the debate in CSDF about adopting the STV voting system.

Robert AKA Michel

I think your recollection is faulty. The CSDF had adopted a platform including electoral reform and STV before CARE adopted a similar policy.

But... to get back to the main issue. I think it would be better for our democracy if Cindy were to resign from the RA in order to run for Chancellor. We could then hold the by-election and break the impasse very quickly.

Direct election of the Chancellor is an idea that has some merit. I'm not opposed to a discussion about having a more 'presidential' system as opposed to the compromise we have had until now. But it would not make sense to make this fundamental change (which requires a constitutional amendment) just to break the deadlock that currently exists.

[Robert Walpole]

I totally agree there is no need to rehash old history especially since we will not agree.

There is no reason for Cindy to resign. As explained, there is no conflict of interest due to factions having lost their key role in RA elections, and due to the fact that the SC never ruled that an RA member cannot vote for him/herself.

Again as explained, your convoluted idea of having a byelection for a new RA member which woulkd be fought purely on the Chancellor issue would further diminish the RA's credibility (see low voting numbers).

Cindly should cast her vote, a Chancellor should be selected ASAP, as per the Constitution.

This is getting repetitive.

Good luck with it all.

[Ranma Tardis]

If Cindy resigned, who would be her replacement? Is it the next person on the election list?
The laws of the CDS are too complex and not all posted. A sign of a democracy is that all of the laws are available to read.
This needs to be resolved, I do not think all sides will be happy but the next election is under 6 months away.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Interesting to come back to this after a few days away. Just to clarify my own thinking:

1. I never considered the suggestion that I resign my RA seat to stand for Chancellor. There is no legal reason for me to do so, and I can't think of any ethical reasons. In fact, of all of the possible things I could do, I think that would be the least "democratic" considering the proportion of citizens who must have cast a vote for me in the election in order for me to come out with such a strong score. That makes it "unethical" for me to resign in my book. Furthermore, my resigning would not resolve the current impasse in a timely fashion: the vote would still be tied, and even if we staged a new election it would be a minimum of 4 weeks before we had any results.

2. There is no legal reason why I cannot vote for myself. However, there are several ethical reason why I abstained. First, it would be arrogance of the worst type for me to decide on my own to place myself in the Chancellor's seat by casting a deciding vote for myself. In fact, I'd argue that any candidate who would be willing to do that would be demonstrating that he/she is ethically unfit to hold a position of power. It doesn't matter if that candidate is truly "the most capable" or not -- this is about the kind of hubris that almost inevitably foreshadows ethical downfall. Second, in voting for myself I would be ensuring that I would spend the rest of this term in an out and out battle with at least half of the RA over any decision I made or any program I implemented. As I made it clear here http://forums.slcds.info/posting.php?mo ... 47#pr15587 , I'm simply not interested in working in that kind of environment.

3. There are other alternatives to a continual deadlock -- see http://forums.slcds.info/posting.php?mo ... 47#pr15587 again. They require no changes to our current law, only a willingness on the part of all concerned to decide to do something different. I've already made one alternative proposal and said that I'm willing. Robert's suggestion that we use STV is not appropriate since we have only two candidates -- in a two-candidate race, STV is no different from a non-preferential system so the results would not change. Anyone else have a workable idea they're willing to commit to?

Cindy
<reflecting that one definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result>

[Arias Ahren]

Cindy: I want to commend you on the thoughts and ideas presented above. I would assume a simple re-vote would not change anything. A co-chancellorship would at best be precipitous and at worst a total disaster. Perhaps another election with a third candidate entering the race, if any are willing, would break the deadlock.

[Robert Walpole]

1. I never considered the suggestion that I resign my RA seat to stand for Chancellor. There is no legal reason for me to do so, and I can't think of any ethical reasons. In fact, of all of the possible things I could do, I think that would be the least "democratic" considering the proportion of citizens who must have cast a vote for me in the election in order for me to come out with such a strong score. That makes it "unethical" for me to resign in my book. Furthermore, my resigning would not resolve the current impasse in a timely fashion: the vote would still be tied, and even if we staged a new election it would be a minimum of 4 weeks before we had any results.

Cindy, I am afraid your logic is rather contradictory. Here, you state that it's perfectly ok to stand for Chancellor from your RA seat, and therefore clearly you see no problem to vote for yourself....

2. There is no legal reason why I cannot vote for myself. However, there are several ethical reason why I abstained. First, it would be arrogance of the worst type for me to decide on my own to place myself in the Chancellor's seat by casting a deciding vote for myself. In fact, I'd argue that any candidate who would be willing to do that would be demonstrating that he/she is ethically unfit to hold a position of power. It doesn't matter if that candidate is truly "the most capable" or not -- this is about the kind of hubris that almost inevitably foreshadows ethical downfall. Second, in voting for myself I would be ensuring that I would spend the rest of this term in an out and out battle with at least half of the RA over any decision I made or any program I implemented. As I made it clear here posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=2947#pr15587 , I'm simply not interested in working in that kind of environment.

... but here you think it would be utter hubris to place yourself in the Chancellor's seat vy casting the deciding vote for yourself. Whar would have happened if, let's say, you would have voted first? Then someone else would have voted last, for you, and cast the deciding vote. Yet the outcome would have still been 7-6 in your favor and clearly your vote would have been absolutely critical for your election. So here too, you would have cast a critical vote, even if you would have voted first, not last.

So, the only internally consistent point you can make is that a Chancellor who wins by a 7-6 vote is illegitimate because the vote is too close. Well, we did have before Chancellors elected by 1 vote, and his legitimacy was never questioned. In real life, Adenauer's legitimacy was never questioned either. So then, the only argument you can make is that, to you, an effective Chancellor must win be a larger consensus than 1 vote. Well, I can accept that too. You can gtry re-opening the debate, trying to change minds. What if, after all that, the vote is still tied at 6-6? Well, you will still have only 2 choices: either cast your vote for yourself, and become Chancellor, or cast it for Sonja, and make her Chancellor, or withdrawfrom the race, and effectively let Sonja become Chancellor unopposed. These are your only choices, unless you wish to resign your RA seat and let someone else get elected who would have no problem casting the deciding vote for you or Sonja.

But you say nothing would be more undemocratic than resigning your RA seat, therefore that is presumably not an option. So we are back to your choices above: if after all your consensus-building methods the vote is still stuck at 6 to 6, you can either make Sonja chancellor by 1 vote, or make yourself Chancellor by 1 vote, or simply withdraw and give Sonja the Chancellorship, unopposed. There are no other choices, I am afraid. It's up to you to decide which is the least worst alternative, and DECIDE. As an RA member, this is not the first or last time you will be faced with tough votes. The CDS citizens have entrusted you with their votes exactly in order to make such tough decisions - not to say "Well, it's too hard, I'd rather withdraw or not vote because the disagreement is too deep". In principle, I agree with you that consensual decision-making is best. But when polarisations run deep, each vote becomes critical, and it is your job, given to you by those who voted for you, to make the tough calls -not to stay on the fence or even give the other side a victory (presumably you do see Sonja as the other side, since you are running against her as Chancellor in a two-candidate race, therefore again presumably thinking you are bringing something unique and different from her to the job - otherwise, why run against her and not just let her get elected by unanimous vote?). And if, at the end of the day, if after everything you will try the vote is still tied 6 -6, you still refuse to cast the deciding vote, because in your opinion, it's unethical to vote for yourself in such circumstances, yet not widraw from the race and not resign your RA seat, Sonja will continue as Chancellor for as long as the deadlock continues.

So, I'm afraid you will eventaully have to make a tough call and decide which way you want to go. That's, after all, the job you ran for and were elected by so many citizens.

3. There are other alternatives to a continual deadlock -- see posting.php?mode=reply&f=1&t=2947#pr15587 again. They require no changes to our current law, only a willingness on the part of all concerned to decide to do something different. I've already made one alternative proposal and said that I'm willing. Robert's suggestion that we use STV is not appropriate since we have only two candidates -- in a two-candidate race, STV is no different from a non-preferential system so the results would not change. Anyone else have a workable idea they're willing to commit to?

I meant to use STV in a new, open election in which others could put their names forward to run for the Chancellorship and there would be a direct election by all CDS citizens by means of the STV vote. Obviously, if you and Sonja remain the only 2 candidates, then it would be a straight majority vote. But since all citizens would vote, not just the 13 RA , members, a tie would be rather unlilkely.

Cindy
<reflecting that one definition of "insanity" is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result>

[Arias Ahren]

We might consider awarding the win to whoever attended the most RA meetings last term.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

We might consider awarding the win to whoever attended the most RA meetings last term.

Or, we could just let you decide.

[Arias Ahren]

I realize that my proposal does not fit our constitution. Just a probe to see who might come up from down under and to point out that participation should have merit.