Bill: Faction list deadline

[Flyingroc Chung]

In past elections, we could get a fairly accurate list of faction members at this point of the elections. However, because the two new parties are actively recruiting new members, who belongs to what faction is still up in the air. So I'm sending this bill to the RA to set a deadline:

---

Faction leaders are required to submit a complete list of faction members to the Chancellor and the Dean of the Scientific Council no later than 3 days before the start of the RA election period.

---

I urge the RA to pass this bill in their next session. (Hm, longer term, shouldn't running the election be a function of the executive rather than the SC?)

[Flyingroc Chung]

By the way, the reason we need these lists is that we need to set up the voting machines so that members of each faction can rank those in their faction who have indicated a willingness to serve.

[Beathan]

This is a good idea. We need to make sure that everyone who wants to be able to vote for a particular candidate can do so, which requires that we have complete faction lists.

At the moment, the Simplicity Party has invitation enrollment, not open enrollment. Therefore, anyone who wants to vote for Simplicity Party candidates should send an email to Aliasi requesting an invitation.

Alternatively, we might want to consider a Washington-State style party selection. In Washington, everyone selects a party affilation anew at the time of voting. That is, everyone could be considered, for election purposes, to be a member of the party they place 1st on their ballot. This would dilute party control of its own election -- but would expand the voting franchise without requiring prior identification. The policies on this are very controversial iRL, but both alternatives have merit.

Beathan

[Claude Desmoulins]

Two quick thoughts.

As to the Exec running the election, the current system, in which the Chancellor is chosen by the RA, creates a situation in which the person running the election would have (if they wished to continue being Chancellor) a particular personal interest in the outcome of the election they administer.

The big question about Beathan's proposal is, what do we do with those who don't wish to choose among faction members?

[Beathan]

Claude --

I don't know if FR can program it -- but iRL elections, people who don't wish to choose among the candidates would simply not vote on those items. They would leave that part of their ballot unpunched.

We could add a "novote" option to the list, which allows people to opt out of personalized voting. This is essentially what I do when I want to make sure that my vote is not counted in favor of either candidate. In such case, I write in my universal candidate for all offices, "Kermit the Frog."

Beathan

[Patroklus Murakami]

[quote="Beathan":2imvm0pf]Alternatively, we might want to consider a Washington-State style party selection. In Washington, everyone selects a party affilation anew at the time of voting. That is, everyone could be considered, for election purposes, to be a member of the party they place 1st on their ballot. This would dilute party control of its own election -- but would expand the voting franchise without requiring prior identification. The policies on this are very controversial iRL, but both alternatives have merit.

Beathan[/quote:2imvm0pf]I think we could consider this for the elections in July 2007 but not for this upcoming set of elections. It would mean changing the goalposts since this is 'not what we do' and as Beahan indicates that this is controversial in RL then perhaps it needs further consideration?

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":2mqwzuls]Two quick thoughts.

As to the Exec running the election, the current system, in which the Chancellor is chosen by the RA, creates a situation in which the person running the election would have (if they wished to continue being Chancellor) a particular personal interest in the outcome of the election they administer.
[/quote:2mqwzuls]

Indeed, I'll shoot down that proposal right now.

The fact that the Executive might 'appear' to be the best branch to do this doesn't mean it should; the SC, and the SC alone, has no direct vested interest in the elections (although certainly individual members will have biases).