Proposal: Election Arrangements for the 16th RA

[Patroklus Murakami]

The Scientific Council has sent the constitutional 'waivers' back to the Representative Assembly after considering this issue yesterday. I understand the RA is meeting today to consider what to do next. This post is a proposal for the RA to consider.

First of all, the SC deserves praise for defending the Constitution on this issue. Otherwise - private email chains, decisions taken by the RA by notecard without any public debate... /me shudders. But what should we do now? There are two issues the current RA needs to solve:

1. Setting a date for the election.
This is the RAs responsibility (as the SC confirmed yesterday). The RA set the current dates some years ago and the RA has the power to amend (but not waive, suspend or otherwise mess with) the Constitution. I suggest the RA sets the dates for the election to run from next Saturday to the following Saturday so that we can get back on track as soon as possible and allow the new RA to come in from 1 December. We will need reassurance though that the election software and voting booths can be set up in time. Here is a proposed Constitutional Amendment to implement this:

• Add to Article I, Section 1: "Elections for the 16th RA will be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on 19 November 2011."

2. Settling the eligibility requirement for voting and candidacy
The correct cut-off date for these elections was 15 October. (The elections should have begun on 12 November and 15 October is 28 days earlier. But don't take my word for it, work it out yourselves!) Regardless of what might have been posted officially or unofficially on these forums, that is the correct date. I think this it the date which should be used for these elections, anything else is arbitrary and unfair and an attempt to rewrite the rules after the election process (accepting nominations etc.) has begun. It means that a number or new citizens will not be able to stand or vote in these elections which is the supposed 'problem' the LRA and others were trying to solve by private email conversations and secret RA votes by notecard. It also means that we have fewer candidates than seats and so all the valid candidates who got nominations in before the 5 November deadline set by Soro are deemed elected. (Personally, I think we could hold an election with fewer candidates than seats and have argued for this previously. The SC ruled against me on that though).

But what about the keen newcomers who wanted to stand for the RA? Well, if all the seats are not filled there will be a by-election in a month or two and they could stand for election then. Or they could do something else, the RA is not the be-all and end-all after all. You don't need to be on the RA to develop proposals for laws. You don't need to be on the RA to organise a new political faction (or revive an old one). You don't need to be on the RA to get involved in building, events, commerce or publicising the CDS. Part of my reason for standing is to put forward proposals to get the focus off the RA and on to civil society where it belongs.

The RA can set the eligibility requirement for these elections with a simple Constitutional Amendment:

• Add to Article V, Section 3: "No citizen shall be eligible to vote in the election for the 16th RA and Chancellor unless he or she has been a citizen since 15 October 2011."

[Arria Perreault]

I thank Patroklus for his proposals for constitutional amendments. I have the same understanding of the request of the SC, but my proposals were a bit different.

1. Setting a date for the election.
...

• Add to Article I, Section 1: "Elections for the 16th RA will be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on 19 November 2011."

[/quote]

The Dean of the SC can already change the dates, but only in one case: server outage. It is clear that many other issues can happen, not only a server outage. The issues can be technical (server, software, ...) or organizational (like now). I suggest that we extend the possibilities of the Dean.

Art. I, section 2

In the event of a server outage which prevents citizens from casting ballots and which lasts more than 12 hours, the Dean of the SC has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.

becomes:

In the event of any technical or organizational difficulties in the ballot, the Dean of the SC has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.

2. Settling the eligibility requirement for voting and candidacy
...
The RA can set the eligibility requirement for these elections with a simple Constitutional Amendment:

• Add to Article V, Section 3: "No citizen shall be eligible to vote in the election for the 16th RA and Chancellor unless he or she has been a citizen since 15 October 2011."

I consider that the Constitution should clearly say what are the duties of the different branches in the election process. It begins with the publication of all dates and the list of citizen made by the Executive which must be validated by the SC. It ends with the validation of the results by the SC. Infortunately we don't have time to list all tasks. The principles should be in the Constitution and the details should be in a law. For this reason, I agree with your pragmatic proposal. I'd change the date and use the one of the 3rd november as it was the date that everyone had in mind. Let's make it official. Using this date could prevent us from the organization of a by-election.

[Bromo Ivory]

Given the election cycle is underway and we have failed to execute the cycle as of this point, the laws passed today will be automatically have a cloud over them due to conflict of interest surrounding the election of the RA.

To remedy this ... I suggest that we open a special window for additional candidates to declare for the number of days the voting is delayed, and extend voting eligibility by at least to include all recent citizens. This in my mind would be a decent exception.

By missing our date for poll openings - and being forced to change laws in the middle of an election cycle really calls legitimacy of the elections themselves into question.

You could even make an argument for starting the whole cycle over again - since changing rules once things are underway shouldn't be greeted particularly well.

IN the future, since I understand this is a software readiness issue, that we sort out any and all software issues before the candidate window opens. And then stick with that in the cycle.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Arria, Bromo

With the greatest of respect to your proposals, "changing the rules in the middle of an election cycle" is exactly what you are proposing! I am suggesting that we go back to the rules as they were, as opposed to what some people thought they were, and completing this election cycle with as little deviation from the rules as possible.

We do not need to provide the Dean of the SC with even greater leeway to vary the dates of elections. The dates of future elections are available for anyone to work out with a copy of the Constitution and a calendar. I'll post the key dates for the next four elections below to show how easy it is (but make sure you check them, I'm not 'official' ). All that is necessary is for people in the government to do their jobs and publicise these key dates in good time. Set a calendar alert on your iphone (or other smartphone of choice) it's really easy! The current RA should not be making wholesale changes to the Constitution when it does not need to and it only has a few days left in office; these kind of changes should be left for the next RA to consider.

Changing the eligibility date to 3 November is something the RA could choose to do today. I don't think it should though for the simple reason that this is changing the process after it has begun. The same problem occurs with opening a special window for additional candidates to declare. The date for closing of nominations has already been set by the Dean and has passed. The RA can't go back and reopen nominations, it is not in their gift to do so.

I know that many will want to avoid the situation where we have fewer candidates than seats and be nice to the newcomers who have come forward as (unfortunately invalid) candidates for these elections. But let's not tie ourselves up in constitutional knots as a consequence.

CDS Election Cycle - Future Key Dates

• 17th Representative Assembly - 1 June to 30 November 2012
  Dean reminds citizens of key dates (suggested) 1 April 2012
  Qualification date for citizenship and candidacy 14 April 2012
  Notice to Dean (suggested) 21 April 2012
  Campaign officially starts 5 May 2012
  Polls Open 12 to 19 May 2012
  Inaugural Meeting (to select LRA) 26 May 2012

• 18th Representative Assembly - 1 December 2012 to 31 May 2013
  Dean reminds citizens of key dates (suggested) 30 September 2012
  Qualification date for citizenship and candidacy 13 October 2012
  Notice to Dean (suggested) 20 October 2012
  Campaign officially starts 3 November 2012
  Polls Open 10 to 17 November 2012
  Inaugural Meeting 24 November 2012

• 19th Representative Assembly - 1 June to 30 November 2013
  Dean reminds citizens of key dates (suggested) 30 March 2013
  Qualification date for citizenship and candidacy 13 April 2013
  Notice to Dean (suggested) 20 April 2013
  Campaign officially starts 4 May 2013
  Polls Open 11 to 18 May 2013
  Inaugural Meeting 25 May 2013

• 20th Representative Assembly - 1 December 2013 to 31 May 2014
  Dean reminds citizens of key dates (suggested) 28 September 2013
  Qualification date for citizenship and candidacy 12 October 2013
  Notice to Dean (suggested) 19 October 2013
  Campaign officially starts 2 November 2013
  Polls Open 9 to 16 November 2013
  Inaugural Meeting 23 November 2013

[Arria Perreault]

Here are some facts. Correct me if I am wrong.

Polls open on 12 nov. -> 28 days earlier : 15 oct -> 6-7 candidates
Polls open on 19 nov. -> 28 days earlier : 22 oct -> 6-7 candidates

If we take the date of the 3rd nov as deadline for the qualification to vote (only for this election), we have 9-10 candidates.

About the power of the Dean regarding the dates of the elections, I still think that the server outage is not the only case that can bring an issue.

[Trebor Warcliffe]

To whom it may concern:

I have to agree with Pat, the thoughts provided by Arria and Bromo would be exactly what they're saying they don't want, "changing the rules in the middle of an election cycle." Just because a mistake was made and citizens were misinformed does not make it right to change the rules to make them fit the mistake. I was thrilled with the number of candidates who declared by the 5th of November but if some of them weren't eligible per the Constitution or Code of Laws than they must be disqualified. Also as Pat points out, one doesn't need to hold a seat on the RA to become a participating and contributing citizen of the CDS. I point to myself as a good example in how much I've accomplished in the 17 months I've been here without ever being elected. If these citizens want to participate there will be plenty of opportunities to do so.

One other thing that needs to be pointed out. I also calculated the date as October 15th for the cut-off for citizenship to vote and/or run. According to our land scanner which sends out an email whenever land is transferred from one owner to the next Shep is a viable candidate.

Land Scanner Colonia Nova [email protected] to me
show details Oct 14
Object-Name: Land Scanner Colonia Nova
Region: Colonia Nova (246528, 250112)
Local-Position: (33, 229, 44)

Ownership of the parcel Cam and Lil Playground in Colonia Nova was transferred from Rudeen Edo to Shep Titian. http://slurl.com/secondlife/Colonia%20Nova/70/42

So in actuality we only have 3 candidates who will be disqualified if we follow our Constitution and Code of Laws which I feel to keep the integrity of the Democracy must be done. As Pat pointed out if we are short seats on the RA we will be holding a by-election whose "date of qualification" will be 28 days before the opening of the polls for that election. If I was a gambling man I'd say we will be working this term on passing a clearer, more consice, and a who is in charge of what proposal for campaigning and elections. I look forward to working on that task with all of you.

Final point, even if count backwards from November 19th, the next logical date the polls open, it will not affect the three candidates concerned. That date would be October 22nd and these citizens joined us on the 24th, 25th, and 29th.

Trebor

[Beathan]

I have to agree with Pat's proposal as the proper procedure for dealing with this situation without a substantial rule change after the process has begun. That said, if any currently-declared candidate is excluded from the election, I will withdraw my candidacy and will stand instead in the special election. That will make more seats available for that election and will give more choice to the CDS citizens.

Beathan

[Trebor Warcliffe]

Beathan,

That's actually very interesting. I certainly don't see any law or regulation that would prevent you from doing that and it would make the by-election a more meaningful event. Thank you for your contribution to the discussion.

[Beathan]

At this point, I feel the need to urge my fellow qualified candidates (or at least some of them) to follow my lead and withdraw from the general election in favor of the by-election. I'm unclear how many candidates there are for the general election -- but it is possible that, even with my withdrawal, there are enough to fill the RA without a by-election, and that would exclude some very promising new citizens.

If other candidates don't join me in withdrawing in favor of a by-election -- or if previously withdrawn candidates get back in such that there will not be a by-election -- then I will not withdraw but will rather run based on the promise that, if elected, I will resign to allow for a by-election in which the excluded new citizens can stand for election.