Candidates, Declare!

[Patroklus Murakami]

What Pat wants is the ability to give directed votes. Each voter gets [in this situation -- or any other] the number of votes as there are candidates standing for election. The voter can vote for all, ergo, 1 vote for each candidate, or have the ability to direct all of the citizen's votes to one or more. That would result in what he seems to want, a means to test the popularity of the elected class of candidates. Its also another method to bring back the smoke filled room and the imposition of politically bullies on the population, because no one else would vote for them. Several States and Nations have outlawed the process in the commercial field.

Delia has graciously given Pat a simple lesson about the means to seek such a change in CDS, for good or ill -- a constitutional amendment that permits that type of voting.

Cheers.

Soro.

Nope. Not 'what Pat wants'. Don't know where you got that idea from Soro.

[Aliasi Stonebender]

What Pat wants is the ability to give directed votes. Each voter gets [in this situation -- or any other] the number of votes as there are candidates standing for election. The voter can vote for all, ergo, 1 vote for each candidate, or have the ability to direct all of the citizen's votes to one or more. That would result in what he seems to want, a means to test the popularity of the elected class of candidates. Its also another method to bring back the smoke filled room and the imposition of politically bullies on the population, because no one else would vote for them. Several States and Nations have outlawed the process in the commercial field.

Delia has graciously given Pat a simple lesson about the means to seek such a change in CDS, for good or ill -- a constitutional amendment that permits that type of voting.

Cheers.

Soro.

Nope. Not 'what Pat wants'. Don't know where you got that idea from Soro.

Perhaps because of how loudly you're insisting on it.

Just saying.

[Soro Dagostino]

Here is the subject, should anyone want to read about the process. Yes, it is from a business point of view -- but, CDS is very much like a small corporation.

See: http://lawreview.byu.edu/archives/1989/4/dal.pdf

[Soro Dagostino]

Oh, and one more way Pat can get his hammer. He can propose that each parcel of land is like a share of stock. The more you buy, they more you can gain control until you kick all those reasonable people off the committees, congresses and other levers of political power. Focus it down to a King &/or Queen and let the single parcel peasants go suck rocks.

Just what Pat wants.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Oh, and one more way Pat can get his hammer. He can propose that each parcel of land is like a share of stock. The more you buy, they more you can gain control until you kick all those reasonable people off the committees, congresses and other levers of political power. Focus it down to a King &/or Queen and let the single parcel peasants go suck rocks.

Just what Pat wants.

Lies. Show me where I've said that.

Please restrict yourself to the issues and refrain from smearing opponents with lies.

This is how the Scientific Council behaves now? Sheesh!

[Pip Torok]

Oh, and one more way Pat can get his hammer. He can propose that each parcel of land is like a share of stock. The more you buy, they more you can gain control until you kick all those reasonable people off the committees, congresses and other levers of political power. Focus it down to a King &/or Queen and let the single parcel peasants go suck rocks.

Just what Pat wants.

Hi Soro,

At one time, I chaired an Open University Student's Union Committee.

One committee member (let's call him Fred) would routinely put words into other people's mouth, and in general put the most uncharitable slant upon their supposed intentions.

After two such unpleasant meetings, I would then start-off each subsequent one by noting that Fred's resignation was not among the committee papers! Quick off the mark, secretary and treasurer both would then assure me that they had not seen it either. Fred's, and everyone else's, body-language was a sight to see.

It wasn't long before Fred stopped showing-up at branch meetings.

I look forward to seeing you at the next SC meeting, Soro.

Pip Torok

[Soro Dagostino]

Starboard. . .

[Delia Lake]

Thank you, Pat. This is good. You and I are in agreement on one point: the CDS is a constitutional democracy. I believe that the conversation on this thread could be a useful one that could further the understanding of our Constitution, identify where it may not reflect the concerns and desires of our citizenry, as well as where there may be either gaps in what is addressed or provisions in the Constitution that might be better placed in the Code of Laws.

I do have a further condition for participating in this discussion though and want that be very clear about it. I will engage on issues but not participate in ad hominem attacks. In fact, if this thread degenerates to be primarily personal attacks, I'm done posting to it.

It is not that I don't ever go after anyone verbally. I do, I have and I will in the future. When I do, I take the time to do thorough research, but even more importantly I pick my targets very carefully. If I am going to expend that kind of time and energy it's going to be directed at a target of critical concern and almost certainly someone in RL whose actions are causing great harm or even death to real people. So for me that would be people like Erik Prince of Xe (formerly Blackwater), John Ferguson, Board Chair of Corrections Corporation of America--the company that reportedly wrote the text of the Arizona immigration law that would give this company sizable profits from running detention centers for illegal immigrant children in the US, and Massey Energy's CEO Don Blankenship, who leads a company that is notoriously in violation of US mine safety and environmental regulations the result being many needless deaths. No one in the CDS is on my personal targets list.

In addition, Pat stated earlier in this thread that he would be running for RA in the upcoming by-election. I will not be running for RA, not in the by-election, not in the regular RA election next spring. I will not be standing for another term as SC Dean either. I may remain on the SC but not as Dean. I said that in the October SC meeting--it's in the transcript--and I say it again here.

My personal interest in pursuing this thread is that I believe there is something to learn here regarding the construction and operation of democracy, and particularly democracy in an evolving world. If others are interested in engaging in conversation at this level, one directed toward doing the best we can for the CDS now and into the future, let's play. If not then my earlier posts stand as they are.

Delia

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Delia I have to ask why is there going to be a by-election in the first place. I understand as it is that technically we are suppose to have one more RA member according to the Constitution but the way I see it if citizens were interested in running for the position they had their chance to declare their intentions last week. Maybe a smaller group of people in the RA will be more productive or efficient than a larger group. Kind of the old analogy "to many chiefs and not enough indians." Off topic, but what I'm curious to see as I approach my 6 month anniversary is how many of our citizens will be voting in our first ever Chancellor election. It seems both on the forums and inworld I see basically the same two dozen or so citizens but our census shows upwards of 150+ (didn't doublecheck myself on this point but you get the idea) tier paying citizens. Just a thought, thank you.

Trebor Warcliffe

[Patroklus Murakami]

Delia

Once more, the questions you have not yet answered:

1. please show me where it says in any of the evidence you quote "don't bother holding an election, don't bother counting votes".

2. All of the examples you cite presuppose that you hold an election. STV stands for SINGLE TRANSFERABLE VOTE and you are preventing us from voting. Why do you not hold a vote as STV requires?

[Soro Dagostino]

Another point of view: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... .DTL&tsp=1

[Arria Perreault]

our census shows upwards of 150+ (didn't doublecheck myself on this point but you get the idea) tier paying citizens.

On 19 October there were 78 citizen:

http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key= ... utput=html

The number of RA seats represents 10% of citizen.

[Ranma Tardis]

I do agree with Pat that form should be followed. We had an election in Hampton Virginia in which there was one race and one person. I wrote in Boris Yeltsin. It was for our State Representative and no one ran against her since it was impossible for them to win.
There is going to be a race for Chancellor, so what is the harm?
I do hope that all in the community can come to an understanding.

[Delia Lake]

To Trebor's question, as Arria says the number of representative seats is set in the Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats.

With 78 citizens at the beginning of the period for candidate declaration, that sets the number of seats at 7 for this term. People could petition the new RA to amend this part of the Constitution, but that is the number set for this current term.

In Section 2 also, it says:

Vacancies in RA positions will be filled by by-election administered on a schedule set by the Scientific Council consistent with other applicable CDS law.

So this is why we have to hold a by-election this term.

Slightly fewer than 78 citizens were in good standing and therefore eligible to vote in this election so that with 40 votes cast, 55% of eligible citizens actually voted in the election of Chancellor.

[Delia Lake]

Sorry I couldn't get to posting last week. RL work and travel consumed my waking hours.

Pat, from my perspective and my understanding of STV and Droop Quota, I have answered your questions. I am not trying to be difficult, I just don't know what else to say. Although it may not be said in your exact words, "don't bother holding an election, don't bother counting votes," when there are fewer candidates than seats, there is no candidate to be eliminated by the specified process the effect is the same. It's not "don't bother," it's "can't be done" given the number of candidates we had, the number of seats to fill, the Constitutional requirement for STV (Article I, Section 2) and Code of Laws specifying Droop Quota (NL 12-1). If any one of those conditions were not present, there might have been a way to count votes but given the four together you get an election with no vote counting. Rather than my reiterating more of what I've already posted in this thread, what is your understanding of using STV and the Droop Quota formula where there are fewer candidates than seats to fill? How do you see this could be done?