Constitutional Amendments voted by the RA

[cleopatraxigalia]

There is one other solution guys.. as usual.

The people standing unopposed when they know qualified candidates want to run. Could pull out. In my personal opinion it is unethical for them to run unopposed under these circumstances.

Give us a choice.

or is you scared ))

[Beathan]

Cleo --

I don't think that is really an option. If no one runs, presumably the old RA remains in place until after another election -- which would be like the by-election. It makes more sense to me to run unopposed in the current election and re-run opposed in a by-election scheduled as soon as possible (but realistically in January).

Beathan

[cleopatraxigalia]

Why can the by election not be for 7 seats ?

.................excuse me, of course, then the existing people in control of CDS would lose control of the RA without a vote from the populous.. i forgot the plot for a moment.....

why would some people get to run unopposed in a democracy when other people clearly want to run ????
its unethical

[Gwyneth Llewelyn]

Just a simple question here: why is this a Constitutional Amendment?! Changing the constitution to show specific dates for just one single term seems to be a real lack of future-planning. It would be fine to post a law to set dates — we certainly have had laws in the past with sunset clauses, that only applied for a specific period of time.

Doesn't this imply that for every subsequent term we'll have to change the constitution just to set the election dates? Also, making the 16th RA term somehow "special" seems just... odd.

[cleopatraxigalia]

Beathan,
Your way only makes sense if you WANT to ensure that Tor Anna Rosie and Pat control the RA. Dee and Shep will have no voice, if they vote one way and the 4 vote another. If though, what you want is an election, and citizen choice, then there are lots of options to make that happen.

current status quo is not even enough people to fill the seats, so thats what it will remain.despite plenty of qualified people duped into thinking 12 people were running for 7 seats.

that was the problem it seems

Soro knew the dates were an issue

his actions and lack of action clearly misled many people into thinking that 12 people were standing for election

[Patroklus Murakami]

Just a simple question here: why is this a Constitutional Amendment?! Changing the constitution to show specific dates for just one single term seems to be a real lack of future-planning. It would be fine to post a law to set dates — we certainly have had laws in the past with sunset clauses, that only applied for a specific period of time.

Doesn't this imply that for every subsequent term we'll have to change the constitution just to set the election dates? Also, making the 16th RA term somehow "special" seems just... odd.

Hi Gwyn

We had a special set of circumstances to sort out. The wrong qualification date had been given out and people thought they were clear to run (and/or vote) in the elections when they weren't. The RA then compounded the error by voting in a set of *constitutional amendments* (!) to 'make it all better' retrospectively. They also did this after a 'vote by notecard' with no public notice or discussion (which is not an option covered by the RA Rules of Procedure) following an email discussion most (some?) RA members did not see. The SC struck down this decision after I complained that the RAs actions were unconstitutional.

So, we *could* have done something which gave the Dean or the RA more latitude to set election dates (think about it, that idea is not trouble-free) but the RA were persuaded that this would indeed involve 'making up the rules as you go along' and 'changing the goalposts after the process has started'. Instead they passed the limited set of CAs I proposed which deviate as little as possible from the rules we should have been following all along.

I've posted the relevant dates for the next four elections elsewhere. There really should be no excuse for messing this up in future!

[FernLeissa]

Hi Pat,
To quote you;

The RA then compounded the error by voting in a set of *constitutional amendments* (!) to 'make it all better' retrospectively.

These "constitutional amendments" you're refering to, are they perhaps related to those same amendments mentioned in a note card I received from you on November 13th?

Dear RA members,

I have posted a proposal for dealing with the current issues regarding elections to the 16th RA on the forums here:

http://forums.slcds.info/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=3582

This notecard contains my proposal for a Constitutional Amendment:

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."

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."

Regards,
Patroklus Murakami

Just wondering?

Fern

[Beathan]

Beathan,
Your way only makes sense if you WANT to ensure that Tor Anna Rosie and Pat control the RA. Dee and Shep will have no voice, if they vote one way and the 4 vote another. If though, what you want is an election, and citizen choice, then there are lots of options to make that happen.

Cleo -- what you are describing is how the voting on the RA might work, not how the voting for the RA would work.

My proposal would address the mandate problem Pat recognizes (and the fact that he recognizes that he would have no mandate in a "take whoever shows up" election suggests that the 16th RA, even if constituted as you fear, might not be dangerous, at all, to the citizens of the CDS).

My proposal is that all current candidates also stand for early re-election (or un-election) in the by-election (which would then have at least 10 candidates for 7 positions, making it a real election). If the general election results are confirmed by the by-election voting, then those candidates would have a mandate and the CDS would have voted (at least on some interpretations) to support the conservative, "shut up and watch passively until you learn the CDS culture" approach that Rosie Gray, current member of RA and declared candidate, apparently favors. If that is the way a majority of citizens want the CDS to run, then so be it. Our task in that case is not electoral (to ensure that alternative candidates stand for election) but educational (to teach people how wrong that conception of our project is).

However, the problem is that this requires that other candidates follow my lead in voluntarily giving up power after being elected (at least provisionally pending the outcome of the by-election).

Beathan

[Trebor Warcliffe]

I make this post not to add fuel to the fire but to possibly offer an idea that may be satisfactory to all involved. Fact #1 we have 7 available RA seats for the 16th Session. I “think” at the current time, from the comments posted in the forum on who is and isn’t running, we have 6 citizens standing for the “General Election” they are Anna Toussaint, Dee Shepherd, Pat Murakami, Rosie Gray, Shep Titian, and Tor Karlsvalt.

Dee Shepherd and Shep Titian have never held an elected office in the CDS as they are relatively new citizens. Anna Toussaint has been PIO, if my memory is correct, for the 13th, 14th, and 15th RA Sessions and she has been with us since at least April 8th 2010. The PIO is an appointed system not an elected one. Pat Murakami has been with us since at least June 2nd 2006 but I don’t see him holding an elected position for at least the past three terms. Rosie Gray has been has been with us since at least June 6th 2010 and this was her first term as an elected member of the RA. Tor Karlsvalt is our current Chancellor having held that position this term and last term. Previous to that he served one term in the Representative Assembly. He has been has been with us since at least January 2010.

In my opinion that is a pretty nice mixture of old and new. We have two candidates a few months in, three candidates with less than two years in and one old timer. Personally I like a mixture such as this; it gives us a nice variety of experience, knowledge and enthusiasm.

The three new citizens who were disqualified from running due to citizenship issues were, with their respective dates of citizenship, Vespasian Cortes October 24th, Cacilia McMasters October 25th and Kim Rongu October 29th.

The other three candidates who to the best of my knowledge are not currently running for office in the General Election are Beathan who has been with us since at least 2006, Bromo Ivory who has been with us since at least 2007 and Guillaume Mistwalker aka Gaius Tiberius who has been with us since at least July 1st 2010. Guillaume was elected to the 14th RA in the by-election and I don’t see Beathan or Bromo holding an elected position for at least the past three Sessions.

The General Election begins at Noon SLT this Saturday November 19th and ends at Noon SLT the following Saturday November 26th at Noon SLT. At this point we only know one thing for certain and that is either Bells Semyorka or myself will be elected Chancellor. It is imperative that we, whoever it is, have a functioning Representative Assembly as soon as possible. I suggest we begin the By-Election at 12:01PM SLT on Saturday November 26th and have it end at 12:01PM SLT on December 3rd.

November 26th will allow the three new citizens who were disqualified to stand for the By-Election because that would be the 28th day for the last citizen to be eligible. This will also allow any other citizens who want to serve the CDS as a member of the RA a second chance to stand for office.

The final question is directed towards the current 6 candidates running in the General Election. Without having to make any amendments or bend any rules you do have the ability to make these elections a truly democratic event. If there is no one running in the General Elections than 7 seats would be available in the By-Election and any and all individuals who were citizens on or before October 29th can stand for office. The Chancellor election would remain unchanged and we’d only have a three day delay for the 16th Representative Assembly.

Thank you,
Trebor

[Beathan]

Trebor,

You missed me. I am running for this term in the current election and I will run in the by-election, announcing my plan to vacate that seat for the purpose of having a by-election. That election should be held after the disqualified candidates have been citizens for more then 28 days -- and hopefully we can fix the wording of the amendment disqualifying them from voting or running in an election for the 16th RA. That would mean that we could expect at least 4 candidates in a by-election. I have urged, and continue to urge, my fellow candidates to give up their seats to re-run in the by-election. As Pat points out, with 7 candidates for 7 seats, none of us can really claim a mandate (although something might be gleaned from the order of preference voting; although I would submit that because new citizens are disqualified from voting as well as running, even that information is fairly meaningless given the recent and wonderful growth of our population). However, if we constitute a 7 member RA with the current candidates and then have everyone run in a by-election in January, we can have the real equivalent of the full election that we thought we were having, just a little later than expected.

Beathan

[cleopatraxigalia]

yes trebor ...........

it is a nice mix,

if you want to have the old gard

tor anna rosie pat

control the RA...

How noble of you Beathan, supporting that the citizens as a whole should only get the choice of filling 2 seats, the RA and SC get to fill the others by their action and mistakes and lack of action. I am shocked at you personally. really the old gard will still control the RA by this no matter what ........... the current administration will still control the RA with Pats obvious connection to them now . Why is everyone afraid to put it to a vote of the populous ??

shep and dee will have no power as two votes against four.. but it is pretty

[josjoha]

Hello,

I disagree with a Constitution that focusses on one event on one date. It is not elegant for a Constitution, although it might have to be done when a new Constitution takes effect. I propose that such parts of the Constitution that describe one issue have a self-destruct clause in them, so that the Constitution afterwards remains an elegant document.

I believe the events show that the Constitution may have a fundamental flaw: a Constitution is a document that is made by the people, or at least ratified by the people. It is their to constrain the Government, to prevent the Government from becoming a tyranny. For this reason a Government can not alter the Constitution, and certainly not at the whim of one meeting. At the least, if the Constitutional change is not to be approved by general Referendum, then it will be a mechanism where two consequtive Governments have to approve the change. Why: because then the general public has the chance to intervene through the elections. The reason is that the Constitution is ratified by the People, and only by the people. Thus I call to the rules of 'natural law' (if possible) that this Constitutional ammendment recently passed be disregarded as being part of the Constitution. Proper procedure by The People must be respected to change the Constitution. It has now been shown that the Government can not be fully trusted to follow this principle, and therefore in the defence of the people from tyranny (I speak in general terms about the dangers, not about this Government) I ask the people to think about how the Constitution should be changed in the future by the People themselves, and lay fast such protocol in the Constitution.

I disagree with the events that disenfranchise the new citizens, because being new citizens they are first our guests. Guests are to be treated with honor and respect. A mistake was made on the side of the CDS existing Governance which led them to believe they could vote. They may have enjoyed this prospect, and it may have made them to commit to the land they have bought, becoming enthusiastic citizens looking forward to partake in the voting events. I believe it will be best that we show honor to our guests and reschedule the RA election back in time, so that they who reasonably could believe they could vote in fact can vote.

If the Constitution - disregarding the recent change to it which in my opinion is not binding because it breaks natural law for Constitutions - does not allow this course of action, then I propose that new citizens are compensated for their tier in some way. By that perhaps the CDS could recouperate some honor in the eyes of these now sadly disenfrenchized new citizens.

I hope that the current RA will step down, in part or ideally in whole, so that either a Constitutional crises results from which a new election may be formed which does allow new citizens to participate, thus allowing the crucial element of choice in the elections.

I note that in the Constitutional model as I would like it the people vote in blocks of similar size, each block can appoint and re-appoint their delegate as they wish. This system does have a drawback in that it can be difficult to make up these blocks. However it means that there is no 'use of power' possible by elected people, because if they cross the will of the people they can be removed at a moment notice by the respective blocks. The voter-blocks are therefore always at least in aquiescense (damn hard word that, lol) with the majority of such a representative.

Personally I find this all good fun, Constitutional crises and so on, perhaps we can make a revolution out of it yet ...

best regards to all,
josjoha

[Beathan]

Cleo --

Wait six months and keep bringing in active and impressive new citizens. It will have an effect. We have election rules. They exist to protect us. They can be manipulated in the short-term (and I get the feeling that some of that happened here), but in the long-term they protect and preserve our democracy. Even with the "old guard" with a majority on the RA, I don't think that the RA will move to abolish our democracy. (Even if they do, those of us committed to it can simply pull up stakes and start up anew elsewhere.) The key to voting is not to win this election by any means -- it is to preserve our electoral process despite the apparent manipulation of it this term so that we can win future elections by proper means.

I have enough confidence in the impressiveness of the new citizens and the moral bankruptcy of Rosie Gray's conservative, elitist position to believe that a future victory is inevitable, even if we lost this election to the equivalent of gerrymandering.

Further, I don't see that the voting block you describe is united in any way other than that they are longtime citizens. (Pat has been a vocal critic of the current RA, on which Rosie Gray has served. Tor has locked horns with them, too. I don't see it being a two factions -- but it being a group of shifting coalitions.) If length of citizenship is the uniting feature, then I fit into it as well and you should be happy that I, at least, might be replaced by someone new.

Beathan

[cleopatraxigalia]

Id say you are fairly out of the loop, rosie anna and tor .. completely inextricably tied.. with one partner .. they are in complete control.. why wont you answer the question.

Why cannot we start over completley.

no other reason than an agenda that doesnt allow for all eligible citizens to vote with explain it.

You are actually supporting puttting ANY ^ ANY .............six people in seven seats with OUT a vote of the public .. when you KNOW there are more people willing to stand and didnt based on an error.. YOu keep talkign beathan but you arent answering why you dont want all the seven seats to be a vote of the populous.

perhaps you know better than the over eighty people they will represent..

[Beathan]

Id say you are fairly out of the loop, rosie anna and tor .. completely inextricably tied.. with one partner .. they are in complete control.. why wont you answer the question.

Why cannot we start over completley.

Cleo --

I'm sorry, I thought I answered this question. First, I do want to have all seven seats up for grabs in a contested election that includes new people. My proposal that all current candidates run for confirmation election in the by-election would accomplish that. I would prefer that all seven candidates do so voluntarily, but I would even accept a vote of the new RA to require that all its members stand for re-election in the by-election.

What I don't want to do is to disregard the election procedure in the Constitution. I think that is a very threatening move. As JosJo pointed out, the Constitution exists to protect the rights of the citizens. The election procedure is part of that. It is important that all citizens, including both candidates and voters, have a clear set of rules that govern elections so that they can know what to expect of the election process. An ad hoc, throw-out-the-Constitution fix (which is what I think you must be advocating) would do more harm in the long-term than the current situation does in the short-term. I want to preserve our system for later correction, even if it means we have to stomach a short-term power-grab for the next RA term.

Also, with regard to the faction you identify in your most recent post, I note that Pat is not in it. I worked with Pat on the RA in the past (he was LRA during one of my terms). I expect that he will be LRA this next term, and that he will be a critical swing vote between the faction of three you identify (if they are such) and the other three (which would include me).

Beathan