Ecclesia Procedure Act

[Cormac]

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.

[Khem]

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.

[Cormac]

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.

[Khem]

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 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.

[Cormac]

I actually would prefer anonymity in all voting, as well. How do others feel about it?

[bigbaldben]

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...

[Khem]

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.

[Ivo]

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".

[Delfos]

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.

[Cormac]

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.

[Ivo]

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. 

[Khem]

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?

[Cormac]

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.

[Delfos]

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...

[bigbaldben]

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?