Article 8 Rewrite

[Guy]

Article 8: Elections

Part 1: Challenges

• A: A citizen who wishes to become an Officer or the Delegate may announce their intent to challenge for the position.
• B: A challenge to an official within 30 days of their election requires the support of four other citizens. Otherwise, a challenge for Delegate requires the support of two other citizens, and a challenge for Officer requires the support of one other citizen. If the required support is not received within 7 days of the announcement, the announcement lapses.
• C: Elections begin once a challenge receives the required support.
• D: The challenge period is the first seven days of Delegate elections and first four days of Officer elections. Other citizens may submit challenges for that election during the challenge period, subject to receiving the requisite support under Clause B.
• E: An incumbent official being challenged is automatically taken to have submitted a challenge unless they announce a contrary intention.
• F: Subject to this Clause and Clause K, each Officer election is for a single position. If there are multiple vacant Officer positions, each challenge for Officer is taken to be for all vacant positions.

Part 2: Voting

• G: Following the challenge period, the Assembly will vote to elect the Delegate or Officer. All citizens who have submitted a challenge in that election are candidates.
• H: Citizens admitted after the beginning of an election for the position of Delegate are not eligible to vote in that election.
• I: If the number of candidates is not greater than the number of positions being challenged in that election, each candidate must be confirmed by a single majority vote. If a confirmation vote for Delegate fails, the incumbent Delegate retains the position. Only confirmed candidates become Officers following a confirmation vote, with all other positions challenged in that election becoming vacant.

Part 3: Regular elections

• J: Elections for Delegate are to begin, as if a challenge had been submitted, at the beginning of the first calendar month following six months having passed from the conclusion of the last vote for Delegate. The incumbent Delegate must confirm their intent to run in these elections to be a candidate.
• K: Elections for all Officer positions are to begin on the first day of April, August and December, as if a challenge had been submitted. Each challenge in these elections is taken to be made for all four Officer positions. Incumbent Officers must confirm their intent to run in these elections to be a candidate. No challenge for an Officer position may be made in the 15 days before these elections.

This is longer, but it is hopefully clearer to implement for the Speaker and contains fewer ambiguities.

Substantive changes are contained in bold and coloured. Choices were made between the options canvassed in our recent discussion, however, I believe these are the best available options for the Assembly, for the following reasons.

1. There seemed to be relate consensus that incumbent Officers should not need to confirm their intent to run. We would not want people to be ambushed. If a person does not actively campaign, the electorate can decide not to re-elect them. The one exception may be during regularly-scheduled elections, at which it would seem to make sense to require confirmation to run, given that Officers should know that they're coming.

2. If an incumbent Officer does not run, and a challenger fails a confirmation vote, the position must become vacant afterwards - there is no other option. The reason is as follows: Suppose there are regularly-scheduled elections for Officer under Clause K. None of the 4 incumbent Officers run for re-election. There are 4 candidates, one of whom fails a confirmation vote. Which of the 4 incumbents retains their position?

[Nequedum]

These are all great clarifications of what we've already been doing, and, for that, they have my support- to ensure these normalised conventions are not changed by newer interpretations such as those recently being discussed in the backrooms of this here Assembly.

[Manson]

Full support. Seconded.

[Paulus Gaius Epistre]

These amendments would provide some clarification and I'm of the opinion that challenged Officers shouldn't be required to announce their intent to retain the position (except on scheduled elections). However, I have a couple issues with this draft.

1. The additional challenges still require support from the citizens, right? Then maybe we should legislate that the challenge announcements made during the challenge period lapse, if they don't acquire the necessary support during that period. Otherwise, it should be clarified that they don't need support from the citizenry.

2. Let's imagine the following situation: a regular election for the Delegate position happens, only the Delegate stands as candidate and thus is subject to a confirmation vote. The vote fails, but the Delegate still retains the position. That's rather strange, isn't it? What was the point of the confirmation vote then? I think that this situation should lead to re-opening the election, instead of WAD retaining the position.

3. Speaking of which, why remove the requirement for the incumbent Delegate to announce his intention to run in a scheduled election? This draft would only require Officers to announce their candidacy in such elections. I suggest that the current language of the Constitution be maintained, but adapted to the new law (e.g. "An official must confirm their intent during the challenge period for these elections, but does not require the support of any other citizen.").

[Manson]

These amendments would provide some clarification and I'm of the opinion that challenged Officers shouldn't be required to announce their intent to retain the position (except on scheduled elections). However, I have a couple issues with this draft.

1. The additional challenges still require support from the citizens, right? Then maybe we should legislate that the challenge announcements made during the challenge period lapse, if they don't acquire the necessary support during that period. Otherwise, it should be clarified that they don't need support from the citizenry.

2. Let's imagine the following situation: a regular election for the Delegate position happens, only the Delegate stands as candidate and thus is subject to a confirmation vote. The vote fails, but the Delegate still retains the position. That's rather strange, isn't it? What was the point of the confirmation vote then? I think that this situation should lead to re-opening the election, instead of WAD retaining the position.

3. Speaking of which, why remove the requirement for the incumbent Delegate to announce his intention to run in a scheduled election? This draft would only require Officers to announce their candidacy in such elections. I suggest that the current language of the Constitution be maintained, but adapted to the new law (e.g. "An official must confirm their intent during the challenge period for these elections, but does not require the support of any other citizen.").

Paul, I actually like your take on the Delegate portion of this. I think re-opening the election would be the best idea. However, what if the Delegate runs again and no-one else runs? We'd be stuck in an endless loop of elections.

[Paulus Gaius Epistre]

Paul, I actually like your take on the Delegate portion of this. I think re-opening the election would be the best idea. However, what if the Delegate runs again and no-one else runs? We'd be stuck in an endless loop of elections.

Well, no, not exactly. It wouldn't happen if a confirmation vote actually succeeded. When I spoke about "this situation", I meant a situation in which a confirmation vote for the Delegate fails. Sorry if I made this unclear.

[Guy]

1. Additional challenges require the support of cits, and to constitute part of that election, must be submitted (that is, with the supports) during the challenge period. I think the draft is fairly clear in this regard, but I’ll see if it can be further clarified.

2. An important point of difference here is that we must have a Delegate. So if no one else runs, they must retain the position. If the incumbent Delegate fails a confirmation vote, that would be a signal for other people to consider challenging them. There is no advantage to an automatic rerun of the election. Basically, what you have signalled is exactly how it is intended to operate.

3. Will add that incumbent Delegates require confirmation to run, yes (although that makes me think that we should clarify what happens if no one runs in these elections, lol). I think adding the part of the sentence about not requiring support of citizens would be an unnecessary surplusage.

[Paulus Gaius Epistre]

2. An important point of difference here is that we must have a Delegate. So if no one else runs, they must retain the position. If the incumbent Delegate fails a confirmation vote, that would be a signal for other people to consider challenging them. There is no advantage to an automatic rerun of the election. Basically, what you have signalled is exactly how it is intended to operate.

But the elections for the Delegate still happen in that scenario, so people that received the signal to challenge the Delegate would either have to wait for 30 days, or gather the support of 4 citizens (instead of usual 2) to do so. That doesn't sit right with me. Neither the possibility of the Assembly having to hold a pointless vote ("vote for to confirm the incumbent Delegate, vote against to have him retain the Delegacy!").

I'm gonna be honest, I don't see your point about the vacancy. I agree that we must have a Delegate. But we don't lose an incumbent Delegate if the elections are not conclusive and thus need to be repeated (such a situation occurs when the only candidate fails to get confirmed)

[Guy]

The possibility of an automatic re-run of a Delegate position is far less attractive to me than a retention of the position. The purpose of the six-month automatic election is to encourage people to run, but it is not to place the incumbent under some confirmation threshold. If no one runs against them, then there cannot be a successor. The position requires stability so that the Delegate can act on behalf of the region. Subjecting them to a further election automatically because no one ran against them the first time is entirely unsatisfactory. If someone wants to challenge them, the opportunity is always there. Elections for a hypothetical challenger should be the exception, not the norm.

However, I would point out that my intent was that the four citizen requirement not apply, because by retaining the position (by default) no one is elected to it.

[Paulus Gaius Epistre]

If the intention is for the incumbent Delegate to retain the position no matter what is the outcome of the "vote" happening when he's the only one running, then why not just remove the necessity to have the vote in that case? It can't change anything in the region, so it's useless.

[Deadeye Jack]

So just to be clear if we apply this to the Bob-N-vince scenario:

1. Bob doesn't explicitly contest the challenge but doesn't resign either. The election would have been between Bob and N-vince instead of a confirmation vote according to the way this is written?

2.Bob explicitly resigns after N-vince announces the challenge. No one but N-vince declares candidacy and a confirmation vote is held. N-vince loses, the seat is now vacant.

If both those things are true according to this amendment then I support it.

[Guy]

So just to be clear if we apply this to the Bob-N-vince scenario:

1. Bob doesn't explicitly contest the challenge but doesn't resign either. The election would have been between Bob and N-vince instead of a confirmation vote according to the way this is written?

2.Bob explicitly resigns after N-vince announces the challenge. No one but N-vince declares candidacy and a confirmation vote is held. N-vince loses, the seat is now vacant.

If both those things are true according to this amendment then I support it.

Yes, that is the case.

If the intention is for the incumbent Delegate to retain the position no matter what is the outcome of the "vote" happening when he's the only one running, then why not just remove the necessity to have the vote in that case? It can't change anything in the region, so it's useless.

As I said, I think that a negative vote would be a strong signal for other people to challenge them. While it's not a binding vote of confidence, they only really retain the position as a fallback. At the end of the day, to replace a Delegate you need a challenger, and so I'm not going to write a Constitutional amendment that relies on a repeat election simply because no one stepped forward to replace the Delegate the first time around. All you have to do is step forward the second time, and you can trigger an election.

[wabbitslayah]

Can't read this because the blue is so garish it hurts my eyes trying to read it. So, AGAINST. >:(

[Guy]

I thougth the blue was sufficiently clear, but changed it just for you, Wabbit. :>

[wabbitslayah]

I thougth the blue was sufficiently clear, but changed it just for you, Wabbit. :>

Thanks babe. I can now read, and fully support as written in the OP.

[Neop]

Thanks babe. I can now read,...

This is news to me.

Fully support.

[Guy]

I ask that this be taken to a vote

[Neop]

I ask that this be taken to a vote

Sure. The vote will be held in 24 hours.