Ecclesia Procedure Act

[Khem]

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.

[bigbaldben]

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.

[Delfos]

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.

[bigbaldben]

**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.

[bigbaldben]

Also, typing on a mobile phone is freaking ridiculous.

[Cormac]

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.

[Myroria]

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.

[Myroria]

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.

[Delfos]

5 bucks and I'll accept your proposal.

[Myroria]

Exactly. Politicking is going to happen either way; why not make it clear what legislators changed their minds?

[Delfos]

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.

[Myroria]

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.

[Gulliver]

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.

[Cormac]

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.

[Khem]

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.