These are interesting thoughts.
[quote="Patroklus Murakami":1vx5k7i7]
[b:1vx5k7i7]Seats and Seat Assignment[/b:1vx5k7i7]. We should have a clear rule of succession in place so that, when RA seats become vacant, they go to the next person on the faction list as presented to the electorate. In future, no one who has not been presented to the electorate should be allowed to take up a vacant seat on the RA. This isn't a dig at Pel (and I think the SDF have the right to fill their seats according to the current rules) but the candidates, as much as the faction platform, influence voter decisions and we should not allow a loophole to remain which allows unpopular 'ringers' to be installed after an election.[/quote:1vx5k7i7]
Given that factions rank their members as part of the general election process, the faction list to which you refer is different from any in RL in at least two respects. First, it consists of all members of a given faction (since willingness to serve is not revealed publicly). Second, it is unordered.
My impression is that this was quite intentional on the part of the constitution writers. Having seen the peronality driven campaigns of single seat constituencies and first past the post systems, they sought a method whereby the unaligned voter would be actively prevented from voting for a person. Instead, it was hoped that the faction driven system would force voters to vote based on the ideas presented in party platforms, creating the kind of issue driven campaigns Jon refers to in another thread.
Most of the calls for widespread electoral reform seem to be based on the desire to vote explicitly for or against a person, and argue that people do it implicitly when sitting down to choose their preferred factions.
Some of this tendency has been evident in previous city elections where individual faction members would produce campaign statements/signs/etc. I always found this interesting, as a Bancroft '06 poster (for example) was actually appealing to the small set of SDF members who could actually wote for its creator rather than just the SDF as a whole.
I like the current system, although I'm aware others don't. I like the efforts, however halting, to make the election platform rather than person driven.
[quote:1vx5k7i7]
[b:1vx5k7i7]Vacancies[/b:1vx5k7i7]. What happens if the faction in question runs out of candidates? I think we should hold by-elections for vacant seats in these circumstances.
[/quote:1vx5k7i7]
Since citizens who are not members of factions don't ever vote for a particular person, how would one accomplish this? Would the by election be a general election or at the faction member ranking level?
[quote:1vx5k7i7]
[b:1vx5k7i7]Faction Dissolution[/b:1vx5k7i7]. Recent events, ahem, have shown that factions can be subject to a sudden exodus that leaves them with less than the minimum number of members specified in the Constitution. There is then a question over whether the faction can be deemed to have 'dissolved' and some debate at the last SC meeting over who should make this judgement and when. With our current population of 30 the current rules require that a faction command the active membership of 10% of the population at all times. This is not reasonable. Factions need to be given time to regroup. I would suggest a 'grace period' for recruiting more members if membership falls below the minimum or making it clear that the minimum number must be in play at key times, such as when elections are held.
[/quote:1vx5k7i7]
The three person standard is linked to the LL requirement that inworld groups have three members. By linking factions to inworld groups, a citizen can sign up for a faction at any time, and the list of faction members remains public. The trade off for this is the minimum faction/group size.
