Taijitu
Government of Taijitu => The Ecclesia => Proposals and Discussion => Topic started by: Cormac on April 04, 2015, 05:43:03 PM
-
1. Legislative Procedure
1. Any citizen of Taijitu may introduce a proposal before the Ecclesia. A proposal will go to vote only after a mandatory consideration period of three days.
2. Following the mandatory consideration period, a proposal will proceed to vote after a motion to vote has been made by any citizen and seconded by any additional citizen.
3. Any proposal at vote before the Ecclesia will remain at vote for five days.
4. Citizens may vote Aye, in favor of a proposal; Nay, against a proposal; or Abstain, indicating a vote neither in favor of nor against the proposal but that one has participated in the vote.
5. Unless otherwise mandated by law, all votes of the Ecclesia will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only citizens who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
6. The option for which a citizen has voted on any proposal will be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
2. Election Procedure
1. The election period for any elected office will begin with a ten day period for nominations and declarations of candidacy, followed by a five day period for voting.
2. An election period will begin fifteen days prior to the expiration of an elected official's term or as soon as practical after an elected office is vacated.
3. Citizens may vote for one eligible candidate who has submitted candidacy, may vote to re-open nominations, or may abstain from voting. Abstentions will count only toward participation in an election but will not count for or against a majority.
4. If no candidate receives a simple majority of votes cast in an election, discounting abstentions, a run-off election will be conducted. If the option to re-open nominations receives a plurality of votes, nominations will be re-opened for five more days.
5. Should an election period extend beyond expiration of an elected official's term, the incumbent elected official will remain in office until the election period has concluded.
6. Elections for Citizen-Initiator will be administered by the Citizen-Delegate. Elections for all other elected offices will be administered by the Citizen-Initiator.
7. In the event that any designated election administrator is standing for office in the election they are designated to administer or the office of the election administrator is vacant, administration of that election will pass to the citizen who has maintained citizenship for the longest continuous period and who is available to serve as election administrator.
8. The candidate for whom a citizen has voted in any election will not be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
We've been having some issues with procedure lately, particularly as related to abstentions, so I thought it would be a good idea to get our basic procedures written down so we're all on the same page. I think the above draft works well for that and I look forward to feedback.
-
I disagree with sections 1.6 and 2.8 . Public visibility will promote people to vote with the crowd rather than for their conscience. I believe all votes should be anonymous.
-
I disagree with sections 1.6 and 2.8 . Public visibility will promote people to vote with the crowd rather than for their conscience. I believe all votes should be anonymous.
This isn't how we've been doing it since at least Gulliver's term as Citizen-Initiator, which is why I've written it this way. But obviously we can change how we're doing it if the Ecclesia would prefer anonymity in all votes.
As a note, 2.8 does provide for anonymity. The practice thus far is that legislative votes have been public, election votes have been private.
-
I disagree with sections 1.6 and 2.8 . Public visibility will promote people to vote with the crowd rather than for their conscience. I believe all votes should be anonymous.
This isn't how we've been doing it since at least Gulliver's term as Citizen-Initiator, which is why I've written it this way. But obviously we can change how we're doing it if the Ecclesia would prefer anonymity in all votes.
As a note, 2.8 does provide for anonymity. The practice thus far is that legislative votes have been public, election votes have been private.
My bad :D Reading things quickly makes for less than perfect understanding. If we are merely codifying the procedures as they stand with no wish to alter them, this is perfect. Otherwise I would have 1.6 match 2.8 after the date of adoption.
-
I actually would prefer anonymity in all voting, as well. How do others feel about it?
-
When I first read it, I thought 1.6 was a really good idea - public AND able to change. Really allows for debate, deal making and such that is common with legislature, IMO. Anonymity for elections of officials makes sense though, esp. if a candidate would take a vote for the opponent as a personal slight.
Er, not that it would ever happen here...
-
When I first read it, I thought 1.6 was a really good idea - public AND able to change. Really allows for debate, deal making and such that is common with legislature, IMO. Anonymity for elections of officials makes sense though, esp. if a candidate would take a vote for the opponent as a personal slight.
Er, not that it would ever happen here...
The deal making and persuasion altering a vote from its inherent place as a vote by conscience deplorable and exactly the sort of thing I wish to negate.
-
I actually would prefer anonymity in all voting, as well. How do others feel about it?
I agree that votes should be anonymous. Too often can one side establish a larger "voting bloc" as soon as the proposal appears on the voting floor, thus giving themselves an unfair advantage when more politically apathetic citizens "go with the crowd".
-
I disagree with sections 1.6 and 2.8 . Public visibility will promote people to vote with the crowd rather than for their conscience. I believe all votes should be anonymous.
agreed, we've tried to introduce this before "gulliver's term" and it was adopted by our Delegate and some of the votes.
Campaigning and letting people to know your opinion should be done before the vote anyways, maybe we should actually legislate a debate period as obligatory.
-
I agree that votes should be anonymous. Too often can one side establish a larger "voting bloc" as soon as the proposal appears on the voting floor, thus giving themselves an unfair advantage when more politically apathetic citizens "go with the crowd".
Well, citizens would still see the number of votes Aye, Nay, and Abstain, to be clear. What they would no longer see is the list of citizens voting for each option, which is currently visible every time we vote on legislation but not when we vote in elections. It would provide anonymity to individuals but the number of votes would still be known.
Campaigning and letting people to know your opinion should be done before the vote anyways, maybe we should actually legislate a debate period as obligatory.
This legislation includes a mandatory three day consideration period before anything can go to vote. See 1.1.
-
Well, citizens would still see the number of votes Aye, Nay, and Abstain, to be clear. What they would no longer see is the list of citizens voting for each option, which is currently visible every time we vote on legislation but not when we vote in elections. It would provide anonymity to individuals but the number of votes would still be known.
Thank you for the clarification.
EDIT: Citizens won't be able to see which way Cormac votes so they can't follow his lead. ;)
-
I agree that votes should be anonymous. Too often can one side establish a larger "voting bloc" as soon as the proposal appears on the voting floor, thus giving themselves an unfair advantage when more politically apathetic citizens "go with the crowd".
Well, citizens would still see the number of votes Aye, Nay, and Abstain, to be clear. What they would no longer see is the list of citizens voting for each option, which is currently visible every time we vote on legislation but not when we vote in elections. It would provide anonymity to individuals but the number of votes would still be known.
It's technically impossible with the forum as it currently operates to have these numbers hidden right?
-
It's technically impossible with the forum as it currently operates to have these numbers hidden right?
Actually, no, there is a poll option to make results visible only after voting expires -- though for whatever reason I can't select that option, so maybe admins have disabled it.
I'm really not sure we want to go that way, though. It might matter to some citizens to know if a significant number of other citizens are voting against a treaty, for example, and if citizens don't post comments indicating their opposition in the discussion thread, they'll have no way of knowing if people are voting for or against. How the rest of the community feels about something can validly inform people's votes.
-
the problem is that any admins see all those numbers even if they are barred to us plebe...and we've got so damn many admins...
-
When I first read it, I thought 1.6 was a really good idea - public AND able to change. Really allows for debate, deal making and such that is common with legislature, IMO. Anonymity for elections of officials makes sense though, esp. if a candidate would take a vote for the opponent as a personal slight.
Er, not that it would ever happen here...
The deal making and persuasion altering a vote from its inherent place as a vote by conscience deplorable and exactly the sort of thing I wish to negate.
Understood and a commendable stance. But while you and I can trust we will vote by conscience, can we extend that trust to all future Ecclesia? Dealmaking will happen, whether in the dark or in broad daylight. But anonymity would excuse those and other dealmakers from accountability, would it not?
-
It's technically impossible with the forum as it currently operates to have these numbers hidden right?
Actually, no, there is a poll option to make results visible only after voting expires -- though for whatever reason I can't select that option, so maybe admins have disabled it.
I'm really not sure we want to go that way, though. It might matter to some citizens to know if a significant number of other citizens are voting against a treaty, for example, and if citizens don't post comments indicating their opposition in the discussion thread, they'll have no way of knowing if people are voting for or against. How the rest of the community feels about something can validly inform people's votes.
That is what the discussion period covers in my opinion. If there is an option for preventing prejudice via seeing how the group is voting I would see it taken. As Delfos has pointed out we have brought this up many times previously and my opinion on this is well documented in such discussion, therefor I will make this my last comment on the ideal.
When I first read it, I thought 1.6 was a really good idea - public AND able to change. Really allows for debate, deal making and such that is common with legislature, IMO. Anonymity for elections of officials makes sense though, esp. if a candidate would take a vote for the opponent as a personal slight.
Er, not that it would ever happen here...
The deal making and persuasion altering a vote from its inherent place as a vote by conscience deplorable and exactly the sort of thing I wish to negate.
Understood and a commendable stance. But while you and I can trust we will vote by conscience, can we extend that trust to all future Ecclesia? Dealmaking will happen, whether in the dark or in broad daylight. But anonymity would excuse those and other dealmakers from accountability, would it not?
I can see where that might become an issue I would deal with such issues if and when they arise. Also I don't see how viewing someones vote let's you see their hand in deal-making. Recently there were actions taken to sway votes based on seeing who voted for what, this I would see end.
-
I disagree with sections 1.6 and 2.8 . Public visibility will promote people to vote with the crowd rather than for their conscience. I believe all votes should be anonymous.
agreed, we've tried to introduce this before "gulliver's term" and it was adopted by our Delegate and some of the votes.
Campaigning and letting people to know your opinion should be done before the vote anyways, maybe we should actually legislate a debate period as obligatory.
I can get behind that.
-
When I first read it, I thought 1.6 was a really good idea - public AND able to change. Really allows for debate, deal making and such that is common with legislature, IMO. Anonymity for elections of officials makes sense though, esp. if a candidate would take a vote for the opponent as a personal slight.
Er, not that it would ever happen here...
The deal making and persuasion altering a vote from its inherent place as a vote by conscience deplorable and exactly the sort of thing I wish to negate.
Understood and a commendable stance. But while you and I can trust we will vote by conscience, can we extend that trust to all future Ecclesia? Dealmaking will happen, whether in the dark or in broad daylight. But anonymity would excuse those and other dealmakers from accountability, would it not?
I think the democratic principle of transparency would definitely reward those who'd make deals at broad daylight, if those deals are in the interest of all and not egocentric, people will reward them with their vote. Otherwise, we already have the Cabal, they definitely like them deals either way.
-
**snip**
I can see where that might become an issue I would deal with such issues if and when they arise. Also I don't see how viewing someones vote let's you see their hand in deal-making. Recently there were actions taken to sway votes based on seeing who voted for what, this I would see end.
Ok. Makes sense.
-
Also, typing on a mobile phone is freaking ridiculous.
-
I'll point out that any discussion about keeping the vote totals secret until after the vote will need to include admins explaining why that option can't be selected in polls. At this moment, I literally am unable to select that option, so the Ecclesia can't legislate something the Citizen-Initiator can't do.
-
I'm going to take the other side here and say that I think legislative votes should be public unless the Ecclesia motions beforehand to make it private.
The Ecclesia may be a legislature comprised of all citizens, but it is still a legislature. Legislators should have their votes public so that they can be accountable for them.
Also, we have about as many admins as any other region our size and they can't see who voted for what if the poll isn't marked that way to begin with. Maybe root can, but I'm not even sure about that.
-
Also, bigbaldben makes a good point. Persuasion is going to happen either way. I don't think making votes anonymous will convince everyone to vote purely based on their conscience. If someone's allegiance is so easily swayed I don't think we should coddle them by allowing their switch to be hidden, regardless.
-
5 bucks and I'll accept your proposal.
-
Exactly. Politicking is going to happen either way; why not make it clear what legislators changed their minds?
-
Exactly so, my "conscience" isn't cheap, nor should there be peer pressure to vote on a certain option for whatever reason, neither count or person should be visible, and in the end produce a list of those who voted and how many votes each option has. I wonder if Eluvatar or Gulliver haven't made that system yet, there's plenty of free websites that can help us achieve a secret ballot.
-
But shouldn't we expect our legislators to hold convictions themselves rather than coddle them? If they see their friend voted for and they decide to do so as well, that's their concern, not the government's.
-
I'll point out that any discussion about keeping the vote totals secret until after the vote will need to include admins explaining why that option can't be selected in polls. At this moment, I literally am unable to select that option, so the Ecclesia can't legislate something the Citizen-Initiator can't do.
It's a technical issue rather than anything deliberate. That said, I'm checking the permissions for the Ecclesia board right now and you already have the full range of board permissions for polls, both your own and other people's, so I'm not sure why you can't select that option. I'll look into it. Eluvatar may know more than I do.
As to whether we should do it, as has been pointed out before Admins can still see the votes regardless of whether or not the option is selected. This struck me as unfair so I never used the option so that I wouldn't have information I could use to decide my vote that others didn't.
As for whether votes should be anonymous, I think they should be for elections to prevent hurt feelings, but for legislative votes I agree with Myroria. The Ecclesia is a legislature and our legislators should stand by their votes. If they're so easily swayed by the opinion of another hiding who voted how won't change that, since people can still publicly endorse a position and urge people who respect them to vote the same way.
As for the rest of the proposal, I agree with the content, though some of the language could maybe be tightened up to be clearer. Two things I think should be added is a period between when a motion for a vote is made and seconded and when it goes to a vote, during which the motion can be withdrawn if a mistake is found in the proposal. It's not a common thing, but it happens, which is why I always allowed a day or two.
Second, I think it should be made explicit how ties in elections are broken. I always used the standard of whoever accepted their nomination first, but there might be a better way to do it.
-
In light of good points made by Myroria and Gulliver, I'm inclined to continue supporting public votes for legislative votes and private votes for election votes. I don't support removing the public's ability to at least know how the vote is going by hiding vote counts until a vote closes, either. Legislators should be publicly accountable for their legislative votes, even in a citizen legislature, and citizens should be aware of the vote count to make an informed decision. Who are we, as individuals, to tell our fellow citizens that they should not factor how the rest of the community is already voting into their decision on how to vote?
As for the rest of the proposal, I agree with the content, though some of the language could maybe be tightened up to be clearer. Two things I think should be added is a period between when a motion for a vote is made and seconded and when it goes to a vote, during which the motion can be withdrawn if a mistake is found in the proposal. It's not a common thing, but it happens, which is why I always allowed a day or two.
Second, I think it should be made explicit how ties in elections are broken. I always used the standard of whoever accepted their nomination first, but there might be a better way to do it.
These are good ideas. How about this as a revised draft, paying particular attention to the following changes:
- In 1.2, the Citizen-Initiator may delay a vote for up to three days after a motion to vote is seconded.
- In 2.4, nominations may only be re-opened once per election, to avoid potential for an endless cycle of re-opening nominations.
- In 2.5, after one run-off election, in the event of a tie the candidate who declared candidacy first will be elected.
- Slight change to 2.8 to make clear that a substitute election administrator can't be a candidate in the election they're administering.
1. Legislative Procedure
1. Any citizen of Taijitu may introduce a proposal before the Ecclesia. A proposal will go to vote only after a mandatory consideration period of three days.
2. Following the mandatory consideration period, a proposal will proceed to vote after a motion to vote has been made by any citizen and seconded by any additional citizen. The Citizen-Initiator may delay a vote for further consideration, for up to three days after a motion to vote is seconded.
3. Any proposal at vote before the Ecclesia will remain at vote for five days.
4. Citizens may vote Aye, in favor of a proposal; Nay, against a proposal; or Abstain, indicating a vote neither in favor of nor against the proposal but that one has participated in the vote.
5. The option for which a citizen has voted on any proposal will be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
2. Election Procedure
1. The election period for any elected office will begin with a ten day period for nominations and declarations of candidacy, followed by a five day period for voting.
2. An election period will begin fifteen days prior to the expiration of an elected official's term or as soon as practical after an elected office is vacated.
3. Citizens may vote for one eligible candidate who has submitted candidacy, may vote to re-open nominations, or may abstain from voting. Abstentions will count only toward participation in an election but will not count for or against a majority.
4. If no candidate receives a simple majority of votes cast in an election, discounting abstentions, a run-off election will be conducted. If the option to re-open nominations receives a plurality of votes, nominations will be re-opened for five more days. Nominations may only be re-opened once per election.
5. In the event of a tie after a run-off election has been conducted, the candidate who declared candidacy first will be elected.
6. Should an election period extend beyond expiration of an elected official's term, the incumbent elected official will remain in office until the election period has concluded.
7. Elections for Citizen-Initiator will be administered by the Citizen-Delegate. Elections for all other elected offices will be administered by the Citizen-Initiator.
8. In the event that any designated election administrator is standing for office in the election they are designated to administer or the office of the election administrator is vacant, administration of that election will pass to the citizen who has maintained citizenship for the longest continuous period, is not a candidate in that election, and is available to serve as election administrator.
9. The candidate for whom a citizen has voted in any election will not be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
3. Determining a Majority
1. Unless otherwise mandated by law, all votes of the Ecclesia will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only citizens who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
-
I say move forward with this disregarding the privacy issue. Those of us who support secret ballots can attempt to move such through and discuss the merits of such in legislation specific to it. I am in full support of the rest.
-
I say move forward with this disregarding the privacy issue. Those of us who support secret ballots can attempt to move such through and discuss the merits of such in legislation specific to it. I am in full support of the rest.
My concern with this approach is having different Citizen-Initiators doing different things. Gulliver and I have been making legislative votes public and election votes private. The next Citizen-Initiator could make both votes private. The Citizen-Initiator after that could make both votes public. I'm not sure we want the inconsistency of that until whenever we pass separate legislation on the matter.
-
I say move forward with this disregarding the privacy issue. Those of us who support secret ballots can attempt to move such through and discuss the merits of such in legislation specific to it. I am in full support of the rest.
My concern with this approach is having different Citizen-Initiators doing different things. Gulliver and I have been making legislative votes public and election votes private. The next Citizen-Initiator could make both votes private. The Citizen-Initiator after that could make both votes public. I'm not sure we want the inconsistency of that until whenever we pass separate legislation on the matter.
Oh I mean move forward with your proposed set of privacy policies with myself having the intention of later moving to amend that specifically. Move forward with what is and worry about votes being private at a later time. Hoping this moves forward without this point of contention holding up the rest.
-
Oh okay, I misunderstood. Sounds good!
-
I would like to motion this to a vote tomorrow (after the three day period of discussion). I would like to see this put in place with all due haste.
-
As a note for anyone who wants to explore future legislation on private voting, it is now possible to make the results of polls invisible until voting concludes -- though I'm fairly sure they would still be visible to admins.
-
I would like to motion this to a vote tomorrow (after the three day period of discussion). I would like to see this put in place with all due haste.
Seconded.
-
Tonight's issue with Lazarus has actually raised some issues about the mandatory discussion period and five day voting period during emergency situations, as well as public legislative votes when those could be used by foreign governments or individuals as basis for reprisal.
So I would like to ask that the motion to vote be withdrawn while we consider how to work out these issues.
-
I would rather we handle such with its own legislation but if we are to work such into the draft before voting I can support it. Perhaps a clause specifying the C-Is ability to call for a discussion on emergency measures with a drastically reduced timeframe? Like three days total with two days on each discussion and voting with the middle day having both?
-
1. Legislative Procedure
1. Any citizen of Taijitu may introduce a proposal before the Ecclesia. A proposal will go to vote after a mandatory consideration period of three days.
2. Following the mandatory consideration period, a proposal will proceed to vote after a motion to vote has been made by any citizen and seconded by any additional citizen.
3. Any proposal at vote before the Ecclesia will remain at vote for five days.
4. For time sensitive, emergency matters, the Citizen-Initiator may waive the mandatory consideration period or expedite the voting period.
5. Citizens may vote Aye, in favor of a proposal; Nay, against a proposal; or Abstain, indicating a vote neither in favor of nor against the proposal but that one has participated in the vote.
6. Unless otherwise mandated by law, all votes of the Ecclesia will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only citizens who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
2. Election Procedure
1. The election period for any elected office will begin with a ten day period for nominations and declarations of candidacy, followed by a five day period for voting.
2. An election period will begin fifteen days prior to the expiration of an elected official's term or as soon as practical after an elected office is vacated.
3. Citizens may vote for one eligible candidate who has submitted candidacy, may vote to re-open nominations, or may abstain from voting. Abstentions will count only toward participation in an election but will not count for or against a majority.
4. If no candidate receives a simple majority of votes cast in an election, discounting abstentions, a run-off election will be conducted. If the option to re-open nominations receives a plurality of votes, nominations will be re-opened for five more days.
5. Should an election period extend beyond expiration of an elected official's term, the incumbent elected official will remain in office until the election period has concluded.
6. Elections for Citizen-Initiator will be administered by the Citizen-Delegate. Elections for all other elected offices will be administered by the Citizen-Initiator.
7. In the event that any designated election administrator is standing for office in the election they are designated to administer or the office of the election administrator is vacant, administration of that election will pass to the citizen who has maintained citizenship for the longest continuous period and who is available to serve as election administrator.
8. The candidate for whom a citizen has voted in any election will not be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
In light of recent events, I have added a provision (1.4) to allow for an expedited process for emergency matters, and I have removed the requirement that legislative votes must be public so that we can still use discretion if a public vote might result in reprisals by foreign governments.
Thoughts?
-
I disagree with "waving" the obligatory discussion or shorten time to vote, we'll be alienating people from the Ecclesia process. There are already in place other ways for citizens or organized citizens to act in regards to emergencies through or around our militia, anything else I don't see why it needs to be called an "emergency".
I rather the previous draft.
-
I disagree with "waving" the obligatory discussion or shorten time to vote, we'll be alienating people from the Ecclesia process. There are already in place other ways for citizens or organized citizens to act in regards to emergencies through or around our militia, anything else I don't see why it needs to be called an "emergency".
I rather the previous draft.
I disagree. If the mandatory consideration period and voting period were currently in effect, we would not yet even be able to vote on whether to close in-game embassies with Lazarus for another two days, and the outcome of that vote would not be known until next Wednesday. That is an unacceptable delay when regions are counting on our support in a matter of hours, rather than having to wait more than a week for us to make an official decision.
-
If there is objections to legislation done in expedited fashion they can be repealed easily via normal discussion and voting time. Maybe this would be good if it demanded at least three executive offices and three independent citizens called for the vote rather than just the Citizen-Initiator?
-
If there is objections to legislation done in expedited fashion they can be repealed easily via normal discussion and voting time. Maybe this would be good if it demanded at least three executive offices and three independent citizens called for the vote rather than just the Citizen-Initiator?
It'd be easier to use IRC for a "quicky vote" using either the method you described or a better method which I'm not entirely sure what, but I'm sure the Delegate should be part of this double troika. These
But this bring another issue, what type of votes are we going to be allowed to do that? You have to define this "emergency", it's only allowed when what? "time sensitive, emergency matters" isn't definition enough for me.
In case we actually go with Khem's Quorum (which should be the technical term for this), to avoid the same 6 people deciding the emergencies all the time there should also be a provision to renovate at least a third each time this "tool" is used and this vote should be done with any Citizen available in IRC able to participate, so everyone can actually participate, and such log be pasted in the forums.
Yes it does sounds complicated, but that's why I don't see the need of "emergency quicky votes" unless you surpass Ecclesia and it's intention of being.
-
Definition of emergency situations would need to be made. I do like the term Quorum :) I'm unsure if I like the idea of posting logs necessarily, rousing folks from IRC to quorum in a legislative thread should work as easily for record keeping. I do like the idea that the same people should not consistently make up the body of this group, though in certain hours only certain folks tend to be about.
-
I think only "foreign affairs" issues should qualify as emergencies. i.e. business that are conected to the NationStates game and the time-limits imposed in game. All Taijituan internal affairs must be handeled the proper way.
-
I think only "foreign affairs" issues should qualify as emergencies. i.e. business that are conected to the NationStates game and the time-limits imposed in game. All Taijituan internal affairs must be handeled the proper way.
GP (gameplay(NS)) related
-
I think only "foreign affairs" issues should qualify as emergencies. i.e. business that are conected to the NationStates game and the time-limits imposed in game. All Taijituan internal affairs must be handeled the proper way.
GP (gameplay(NS)) related
Absolutely.
-
1. Legislative Procedure
1. Any citizen of Taijitu may introduce a proposal before the Ecclesia. A proposal will go to vote after a mandatory consideration period of three days.
2. Following the mandatory consideration period, a proposal will proceed to vote after a motion to vote has been made by any citizen and seconded by any additional citizen.
3. Any proposal at vote before the Ecclesia will remain at vote for five days.
4. For time sensitive matters related to foreign or military affairs, the Citizen-Initiator may waive the mandatory consideration period or expedite the voting period, at the request of the Citizen-Delegate for foreign affairs matters or the Citizen-Sergeant for military affairs matters.
5. Citizens may vote Aye, in favor of a proposal; Nay, against a proposal; or Abstain, indicating a vote neither in favor of nor against the proposal but that one has participated in the vote.
6. Unless otherwise mandated by law, all votes of the Ecclesia will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only citizens who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
2. Election Procedure
1. The election period for any elected office will begin with a ten day period for nominations and declarations of candidacy, followed by a five day period for voting.
2. An election period will begin fifteen days prior to the expiration of an elected official's term or as soon as practical after an elected office is vacated.
3. Citizens may vote for one eligible candidate who has submitted candidacy, may vote to re-open nominations, or may abstain from voting. Abstentions will count only toward participation in an election but will not count for or against a majority.
4. If no candidate receives a simple majority of votes cast in an election, discounting abstentions, a run-off election will be conducted. If the option to re-open nominations receives a plurality of votes, nominations will be re-opened for five more days.
5. Should an election period extend beyond expiration of an elected official's term, the incumbent elected official will remain in office until the election period has concluded.
6. Elections for Citizen-Initiator will be administered by the Citizen-Delegate. Elections for all other elected offices will be administered by the Citizen-Initiator.
7. In the event that any designated election administrator is standing for office in the election they are designated to administer or the office of the election administrator is vacant, administration of that election will pass to the citizen who has maintained citizenship for the longest continuous period and who is available to serve as election administrator.
8. The candidate for whom a citizen has voted in any election will not be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
Note the changes to 1.4, which incorporates the advice to restrict expedited voting only to foreign and military affairs, and requires that the Citizen-Initiator can only expedite votes on these matters at the request, respectively, of the Citizen-Delegate or Citizen-Sergeant.
-
I like the current draft of the law. One question, though - is there a procedure in place for extending debate if someone feels that a law is being rushed to a vote?
-
I like the current draft of the law. One question, though - is there a procedure in place for extending debate if someone feels that a law is being rushed to a vote?
There isn't but should be. Perhaps something like if three Citizens ask for such?
-
I like the current draft of the law. One question, though - is there a procedure in place for extending debate if someone feels that a law is being rushed to a vote?
There isn't but should be. Perhaps something like if three Citizens ask for such?
I don't think we should make our procedures unnecessarily complex. If people feel something is being rushed to vote, they can vote against it and then changes can be made and it can be put to vote again.
-
Perhaps an option on such votes to extend to a normal voting procedure? Much like Re-open Nominations on an election.
-
Perhaps an option on such votes to extend to a normal voting procedure? Much like Re-open Nominations on an election.
Again, I don't think overly complicated procedures are beneficial. We want the average citizen to be able to have a good understanding of how the Ecclesia works and not have to figure out complex procedures.
-
I support the present draft.
-
1. Legislative Procedure
1. Any citizen of Taijitu may introduce a proposal before the Ecclesia. A proposal will go to vote after a mandatory consideration period of three days.
2. Following the mandatory consideration period, a proposal will proceed to vote after a motion to vote has been made by any citizen and seconded by any additional citizen.
3. Any proposal at vote before the Ecclesia will remain at vote for five days.
4. For time sensitive matters related to foreign or military affairs, the Citizen-Initiator may waive the mandatory consideration period or expedite the voting period, at the request of the Citizen-Delegate for foreign affairs matters or the Citizen-Sergeant for military affairs matters.
5. Citizens may vote Aye, in favor of a proposal; Nay, against a proposal; or Abstain, indicating a vote neither in favor of nor against the proposal but that one has participated in the vote.
6. Unless otherwise mandated by law, all votes of the Ecclesia will be determined by simple majority vote. The result of any vote will be determined by taking into account only citizens who have voted and discounting abstentions cast in the vote.
2. Election Procedure
1. The election period for any elected office will begin with a ten day period for nominations and declarations of candidacy, followed by a five day period for voting.
2. An election period will begin fifteen days prior to the expiration of an elected official's term or as soon as practical after an elected office is vacated.
3. Citizens may vote for one eligible candidate who has submitted candidacy, may vote to re-open nominations, or may abstain from voting. Abstentions will count only toward participation in an election but will not count for or against a majority.
4. If no candidate receives a simple majority of votes cast in an election, discounting abstentions, a run-off election will be conducted. If the option to re-open nominations receives a plurality of votes, nominations will be re-opened for five more days.
5. Should an election period extend beyond expiration of an elected official's term, the incumbent elected official will remain in office until the election period has concluded.
6. Elections for Citizen-Initiator will be administered by the Citizen-Delegate. Elections for all other elected offices will be administered by the Citizen-Initiator.
7. In the event that any designated election administrator is standing for office in the election they are designated to administer or the office of the election administrator is vacant, administration of that election will pass to the citizen who has maintained citizenship for the longest continuous period and who is available to serve as election administrator.
8. The candidate for whom a citizen has voted in any election will not be publicly visible and citizens will be permitted to change their votes while voting is ongoing.
Note the changes to 1.4, which incorporates the advice to restrict expedited voting only to foreign and military affairs, and requires that the Citizen-Initiator can only expedite votes on these matters at the request, respectively, of the Citizen-Delegate or Citizen-Sergeant.
I move for a vote on this.
-
I second the motion for a vote