Unfair election schedule

[Delia Lake]

We are working on the current list. It will be updated by tomorrow.

[Patroklus Murakami]

We are working on the current list. It will be updated by tomorrow.

Thanks Delia. That's very helpful.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

At this point I feel that any comment I might do will be misinterpreted, or, like Jamie put so well, used as a tool to demonise me

Personally, I think that there are two issues at odds here, and I will just tell you how I usually settle them, knowing perfectly well that most people I know have the contrary opinion!

On one side, we have a constitutional provision, and the legality to consider. That is, IMNSHO, the easier way out. The RA cannot have vacant seats for long. It's irrelevant what reasons exist for those vacant seats; we have a set of rules to follow, and either we consider those rules more important than anything else, or we're just mocking them. The advantage under a democracy, of course, is that we can always change the rules if they don't fit with what our opinions are.

On the other side, we have an ethical issue. Is it "fair" to have a RA that has an excessive number of members, many of which resulted from a calculation based on certain assumptions that no longer are true? Like many, I don't feel it's "fair".

But the point here is that we were thrown into a situation that was not planned. When the merger was announced, it was made to coincide with a new term; and the idea was that the confirmation of the merger, or the decision to de-merge, would also fit nicely into a new term. Due to some delays in actually signing the agreement, the dates were a bit skewed. Then we changed all the dates for the terms, making them start much earlier than before. That's what put us into this current situation.

Also, the overall expectation was that the merger would go through...

So I guess that at this stage we have the legalist option, or the ethical one. I would go for the legalist one, it is a more "safer" choice. But if there is a lot of popular demand to review the legislation and change it, well, we could certainly discuss it publicly... so long as we don't create a terrible precedent of always changing the election rules when we just feel that they're not satisfying!

[Delia Lake]

I have a few questions I'd like to put in here. Right now this discussion is narrowly focused on a single event: the demerger of AA from the CDS. Yes, that did reduce the population of the CDS. I would like to have us widen the view a little though. During any political term of office, whether in RL or in SL, the population of a place varies in size. My RL city doesn't have exactly the same number of citizens in the middle of the term of the City Council as it did when elections were held. However, if a corporation moves its large facility and many people leave the city on that account, the City Council does not adjust its numbers downward on that account, and neither does it adjust upward if a handful of companies and their employees move into my city.

So, lets say for the sake of argument here, the CDS did decide that the RA was now too large in relation to the number of citizens and "removed" a certain number of seats. Would it then become CDS policy to remove a sitting member of the RA if say 10 people decided to give up their citizenship during the next term as that number leaving would also affect the percent number for the legislature? And say that during the middle of a term in the future, the CDS opened a new residential sim and had an influx of 30 new citizens. Would we then rush to elect more representatives mid-term?

If we did continually readjust the size of the RA during the term of service, what would that do to the functioning of this legislative body? Working committees could lose their chairs, or even have all of their RA members ousted in the middle of a project? Conversely a handful of new RA if more were added would have do get up to speed in the middle or almost at the conclusion of a project for new legislation? Either could be a functional nightmare it would seem.

And what if there are for the remaining of a term more representatives than the percent called for when the election was held? Is there a downside to what could technically be considered "over-representation"? It would not be that having so many in the RA would be too cumbersome for the body for this term as the RA has already been functioning with that number since the beginning of the term. Elections are always "at the moment" so to speak--the number of candidates running, the number of citizens eligible to vote, the number of seats to be filled. Any or all of those numbers might be different by the time of the next election cycle when the new government will reflect that changed moment in time.

Before we would change this policy, I strongly recommend that the affects that policy would have now and into the future are carefully considered.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Delia, for the record, I fully agree with you That used be the reason why we just have one citizen polls per term. It's pointless to get hectic all the time when population fluctuates wildly...

[Kaseido_Quandry]

And what if there are for the remaining of a term more representatives than the percent called for when the election was held? Is there a downside to what could technically be considered "over-representation"? It would not be that having so many in the RA would be too cumbersome for the body for this term as the RA has already been functioning with that number since the beginning of the term.

Seriously, what *is* the issue here?

I can only glean two objections from this thread: (1), there are all these people in the RA now, and they're actually doing stuff, and I *hate* doing stuff! and (2) there are all these people in the RA now, and I don't like half of them, and I wish they all would just go away!

Needless to say, neither (1) nor (2) are worthy of serious consideration.

I've supported a large RA precisely because it most closely approximates that situation Timo apparently finds horrible: one in which everyone with interest and energy can make a meaningful contribution. Considering that only about 8 of 13 RA members can be assed to attend meetings in the first place, I don't see "over-participation" as a legitimate problem.

I note that 8 candidates were elected in the first two rounds of STV calculations last time, 4 from each rough ideological block. Even had the RA then been significantly smaller, it would be about equally split. If you want to argue that Stui and Cindy drew most all of their support from AA, the next candidates included were me and Tor, maintaining the 50/50 split. Even controlling for AA electoral support, going down the list generates a fairly strong alternation between candidates of each block, right down to the two candidates who lost.

I'll bet good money that the next, small, RA will likely still be about equally split. No matter how anyone might want to manipulate or gerrymander the electorate, the fact remains that the CDS has about a 50/50 ideological split (We Americans have gotten used to this, unpleasant a reality as it is!)

There seem to be only two options for the CDS: either mean what you say about the government being a place that manages significant political disagreements, or follow the path of the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea, and continue to drive out dissidents until there's nobody left.

[Carolyn Saarinen]

But the point here is that we were thrown into a situation that was not planned...Also, the overall expectation was that the merger would go through...

"You know what yegg? I believe you."

Seriously, what *is* the issue here?

I can only glean two objections from this thread: (1), there are all these people in the RA now, and they're actually doing stuff, and I *hate* doing stuff! and (2) there are all these people in the RA now, and I don't like half of them, and I wish they all would just go away!

Bingo!

There seem to be only two options for the CDS: either mean what you say about the government being a place that manages significant political disagreements, or follow the path of the Judean People's Front/People's Front of Judea, and continue to drive out dissidents until there's nobody left.

And on the basis of the evidence so far, which do you think it'll be? Personally, I think there'll be someone or something left, if only an inscription: "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair!..."

[Patroklus Murakami]

Kas

That's pretty much the classic 'straw man' fallacy right there. "My understanding of what people are saying is (1) babies should be eaten or (2) small furry animals should be kicked to death. Neither of these is acceptable therefore I win! KTHXBYEBBQ "

The issue is that there is a legitimacy problem with the RA as currently constituted; half the votes came from people who decided to secede. Some people don't think that's a problem, some people think it's a problem but suggest we carry on with the current RA (and by-elections) until the next elections. I'm not aware of anyone making any other proposal so... why the angst?

Delia suggests that this is just a problem of degree; people come and go in any case so why see this as significant? I think that there is a fundamental difference between the natural ebb and flow of citizens joining and leaving the CDS and the break when AA left. After all, when AA joined us we added new seats to the RA. If joining was significant enough to justify expansion of the RA it could be argued that demerger is significant enough to warrant a correction? Only problem is, that really requires a fresh set of elections for all seats. You can't remove any of the current members because they were elected by the AA citizens (and I don't think anyone is suggesting that).

Better to carry on with what we have, hold the by-elections, and then get on with the remaining work of the term and a new sim! Expansion would be a good way to bring us together in a common project and move on.

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Well, for the record, I will be quite willing to step down from the RA immediately if it's perceived that a new general election of all RA members, counting the current number of citizens to make sure that the RA has the adequate size, is viewed as a more fair representation of the citizens' wishes.

If all current RA members are willing to step down with the same argument, I think we could avoid tinkering with the Constitution or changing the rules mid-term just because the overall situation of the CDS also changed exceptionally.

The important thing for me right now is that the current set of RA members were elected by the citizens at the moment the booths were open, and it's not up to us to decide what choices ought to be better or not for the citizens. It's up to them. I'm all for giving them a new choice, if that's what they want to have

But since I hardly believe this opinion is shared by the rest of the RA members, I'm not going to be pushy about it and just silently point to the SC's ruling...

[Rose Springvale]

This was on the RA agenda two weeks ago and none of you saw it as an issue! I'm surprised that now you want to belabor the issue in the forums. Are you suggesting that you didn't understand what the issue was when we put it on the Agenda?

The fact is that we don't know who elected whom. We don't know if AA people voted, if CDS people voted or if only citizens of both projects voted. That's because we have secret ballots. We also had a terrible voter turnout for a community whose claim to fame is democracy. That deserves your time and attention. Why do people who choose to live in an online democracy NOT VOTE?

This RA deserves the respect of all the members and all the community. They are working hard, for the benefit of CDS. The only people who were ONLY in AA are no longer in the RA. Everyone remaining took an oath, everyone remaining has responsibilities. People are invested, and engaged. We have a lot going on and a lot to do. What are you afraid of?

Let's stop this resignation talk NOW, before we discourage even more people who want this community to move forward. If you feel any of us are not doing our job, bring an impeachment action. Otherwise, we'll see you at the polls next election. And at the RA meetings the rest of the term.

[Soro Dagostino]

Word++