board77

The Last Homely Site on the Web

VOTE OVER: Election of the Mayor

Post Reply   Page 1 of 9  [ 164 posts ]
Jump to page 1 2 3 4 59 »
Author Message
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject: VOTE OVER: Election of the Mayor
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 5:14 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Here is the actual text based on voting results, as interpreted by Jnyusa. Please state whether you agree that this text accurately reflects the voting results, so that we can add it to the charter pending ratification of the membership.

Article 4: Office of the Mayor
¶4: Elections


Elections will be held once a year according to the following schedule:

• On July 24, the current Mayor will post an announcement that the nomination period will begin in 30 days.
• On August 23, a 10 day nomination period will begin, extending until September 2.
• When the nomination period concludes, an election committee will be convened and a ten day voting period will begin.
• The voting will conclude on September 12.
• The new Mayor will be inaugurated on September 22.

During the nomination period, an individual member may nominate or second one candidate only.

The Election committee will be a three-person committee headed by the current Mayor. The current Mayor will select two individuals that she or he believes to be reliable, and together they will oversee the voting process, including counting the votes and announcing the results. No one who is a candidate for Mayor may be a member of the committee. One Ranger will be assigned to the committee to facilitate processes requiring access to the administrative panel; however, the Ranger will not participate in committee proceedings.

The vote will be conducted by secret ballot submitted by PM or email, using instant runoff format if there are more than two candidates and with each voter listing their top three choices in order of preference. The current Mayor will vote first and convey his/her vote by PM to any Ranger who is not him/herself a candidate, so that in the event of a tie the vote already cast by the Mayor will count a second time as the deciding vote.

Members serving as Rangers at the time of the election may run for Mayor, but must resign as Rangers if they are elected.

________________

Amendments to Article 4:
¶1: Term of Office, Eligibility, and Selection

To be eligible, a candidate must be 18 years of age or older, a registered member for six months, and be nominated and seconded by two other members.

________

Ballot No. 37. Election of the Mayor

Vote will remain open for 48 hours, until 9:00 p.m. GMT on July 1.

PART I. Election Committee

Question 1
. Three-person committee headed by current Mayor.

Do you agree with the following statement:

A three-person committee headed by the current Mayor will oversee the voting process, including counting the votes if necessary.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

[PLEASE NOTE THAT THE ANSWERS TO QUESTIONS 2, 3 AND 4 WILL ONLY BE RELEVANT IF CHOICE A IS CHOSEN FOR QUESTION 1]

Question 2. Selection of the committee.

Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

The current Mayor will select two individuals that she or he believes to be reliable with no other restrictions except for those imposed by the results of Questions 3 and 4.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

Question 3. Ranger on the committee?

Please state your preference regarding having a Ranger on the committee.

A. There will be no Ranger on the committee. If the committee needs information from the Rangers, they can ask any of the Rangers to supply it.

B. One committee member will be one of the Rangers, chosen by the current Mayor.

C. One Ranger will assigned to the three-person committee but will not participate in committee proceedings other than to make him/herself easily available to the committee to facilitate processes requiring access to the administrative panel.

Please rank your choices in order of preference, with No. 1 being your most preferred choice:

1.
2.
3.

Question 4. Formation of committee and avoiding nominations of committee members.

Please state your preference regarding the formation of the committee?

A. The committee will be formed 20 days after the current Mayor has made the "heads-up" announcement (10 days before the nominations officially begin). If at that time a member is considering accepting a nomination for the office, the member is not eligible to be on the committee. If a person accepts a position on the committee, they may not be nominated for the office.

B. The committee will be formed 20 days after the current Mayor has made the "heads-up" announcement (10 days before the nominations officially begin). If a committee member accepts a nomination to run for the office, they will be replaced on the committe.

C. The committe will be formed at the end of the nomination process. Members who accept a nomination to run for the office will not be eligible to serve on the committee.

Please rank your choices in order of preference, with No. 1 being your most preferred choice:

1.
2.
3.

[PLEASE NOTE THAT IF THE TOTAL VOTES FOR CHOICE A AND CHOICE B EXCEEDS THE VOTES FOR CHOICE C, THEN THE WINNING CHOICE WILL BE BETWEEN CHOICES A AND B, WHICHEVER RECEIVES MORE VOTES]

PART II. Election Timelines.

Question 5. Election process

Please state your preference for the overall election process.

A. I approve the following overall election process: A "heads-up announcement" will be given by the current Mayor 30 days before nominations begin, with sufficient time to complete the election process before the current Mayor's term is scheduled to end. There will then be a ten-day nomination period followed by a ten-day voting period.

B. I approve the following overall election process: On July 24, the current Mayor will post a "head's up announcement" that the nomination period will begin in 30 days. On August 13, the committee will be convened [assuming that Choice A is chosen for Question 1 and Choices A or B are chosen for Question 4]. On August 23, the 10 day nomination period will begin, extending until September 2, when the ten day voting period will begin [and the committee will be convened assuming that Choice A is chosen for Question 1 and Choice C is chosen for Question 4]. The voting will be over on September 12.

C. I do not approve either process.

Please rank your choices in order of preference, with No. 1 being your most preferred choice:

1.
2.
3.

Question 6. Inaugeration date.

Please state whether you agree with the following statement:

The inauguration of the incoming Mayor will be on September 22 of every year.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

PART III. VOTING PROCESS

Question 7
. What kind of vote?

Please state your preference regarding the type of vote we will use for the election of the Mayor.

A. A simple poll in which the board software tallies the vote and the candidate with the most votes wins, regardless of whether it is a majority or a plurality.

B. A simple poll in which the board software tallies the vote, with a majority of votes needed. If no candidate receives a majority of votes, a runoff will be held between the two highest vote-getters.

C. A ballot submitted by PM or email, using instant runoff format if there are more then two candidates, with each voter listing their top three choices in order of preference.

D. The committee will be free to chose the format of the vote after the nominations close.

Please rank your choices in order of preference, with No. 1 being your most preferred choice:

1.
2.
3.
4.

Question 8. How to deal with ties.

Please state your preference regarding how to deal with ties

A. The current Mayor votes first and conveys his/her vote by PM to the Rangers (ranking all of the candidates in order even if the vote is conducted via a Poll). In the event of a tie, the vote already cast by the Mayor will count a second time as the deciding vote.

B. In the event of of a tie, each member of the three-person committee will vote again between the tied candidates.

C. In the event of a tie, the current Rangers will choose the winner (if there are an even number of Rangers, the last former Ranger to have left office will also be included.

Please rank your choices in order of preference, with No. 1 being your most preferred choice:

1.
2.
3.

Question 9. Rangers running.

Do you agree with the following statement:

Members serving as Rangers at the time of the election will be allowed to run for Mayor, but must resign as Rangers if they are elected Mayor. If a current Ranger runs they shouldn't have the current mayor's tiebreak vote PMed to him or her, for instance. Nor should he or she be involved in any Ranger tiebreaking vote.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

Question 10. Seconding nominations.

Do you agree with the following statement:

For the candidate to be eligible to run for the office, his or her nomination must be seconded by a different member than the member that initially nominated the candidate.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

Question 11. Limitation on nominating and seconding.

Do you agree with the following statement:

Members are only able to nominate or second a single candidate.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

Question 12. Age limitation.

Do you agree with the following statement:

Candidates for the Office of Mayor must be at least 18 years of age.

Select one:

A. I agree with the statement.
B. I do not agree with the statement.

Last edited by Voronwë_the_Faithful on Sat 02 Jul , 2005 6:30 am, edited 15 times in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 5:14 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Friends, this is one of the most important topics left to discuss, and probably the most urgent to resolve, since Jn doesn't want to be "honorary mayor" any longer then she needs to. Hopefully, it will be pretty straightforward to resolve.

Basically, all that we have established at this point is that the Mayor will be elected by the membership, and that candidates need to be nominated by another member. To flesh out a potential plan, here are some additional thoughts. In the interests of transparency, I will reveal that these thoughts mostly do not originate with me. They come from the real discussion leader.

The first question that I think needs to be answered is who will conduct the election. It seems to me rather obvious that the Rangers should do so. The other possibility is one of the standing committees that Jn is so fond of. ;)

The next question is when the election should be held. It seems to me that this is mostly a question for the first election, and that in the future the election would roughly fall at the same time in the year as the first one. Perhaps we could simply say that however is conducting the election will set the date at an appropriate time.

Jn has suggested (and I agree) that it would be appropriate to require not only that candidates by nominated by another member, but that the nomination also be seconded by a third member.

Since it is an election, not a ratification, a simple majority should be good enough. Jn suggested doing an IRV if there is more then one candidate. I'm not sure I agree. My alternative suggestion is that if there is more then two candidates, a winner is only declared if one candidate gets a majority of votes. Otherwise there would be second, run-off, election between the two top candidates. I'm just not sold on doing IRVs among the full membership, although I certainly see the obvious advantages to doing so as opposed to my plan.

Jn proposes a ten day nomination period, and then a ten day long vote. She further suggests that one months notice be given before the nomination period begins so that people can be looking at potential candidates. I am good with these suggestion, but also open to alternatives.

What say you?


Top
Profile Quote
Primula_Baggins
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 5:21 pm
Living in hope
Offline
 
Posts: 7291
Joined: Sat 29 Jan , 2005 5:54 pm
Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
 
This all sounds very clear to me, and in line with what I was thinking we would do.

If we did have some kind of boardwide celebration every year, on October 27 or September 22 or July 6 or March 25, say, it might be nice to time the Mayor's election so either we have a new Mayor in place for it, or so it serves as the last hurrah of an outgoing Mayor.

Another consideration might be having the mayoral switchover happen in a month when the admins don't change, such as September—just to maintain an even strain.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 6:32 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I think IRV is the best pure solution, but ....

It would be very hard to implement and count all the votes ... if there were six candidates, and almost a hundred votes, there would be so much room for error.

I was going to suggest what you suggest Voronwe, but you beat me to it. ;)

I think the two stage poll election where a second vote between the top two is held if no one gets the majority the first time is a good comprimise between practicality and principle.

One drawback of a poll is that the results are visible as the vote goes on, which I don't like much for a real election.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 6:40 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Good point, Faramond. I wish there was some way to keep poll results hidden until the poll is over. We could ask people not to check the results until they vote, but would people really be able to resist the temptation?


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 6:42 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Still working out my thoughts on this. My instinct is to say that a poll would be best, and possibly give the clearest results. If we had the option to do a second poll if there were no clear majority, then I don't see why this shouldn't work. It also wouldn't require lots of counting, adding up, and since the calculating is done by the computer, I doubt that there would be errors.

I think perhaps a standing committee might be good. The Rangers will be different (I'm guessing) each time an election is held, so it might be good to have a group of people who are familiar with the process.

I'll be back later once I've given this more thought.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 8:48 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
I of course would love to have the elections scheduled for the 27th October every year :halo: but I'm ok also with other suggestions.


Not very fond of IRV's in this case either, precisely because of the reasons listed already. To stage poll is a better way and in line with transparency IMO too but I'm still confused about the logistics of this:

- eligible members will be asked to volunteer as Mayor (via email? Thread in Business?)
or according to the first post in this thread…

- members will be asked to put their candidate forward (but members first have to check if their candidate is willing? Check through the Mayor who can be a candidate? Or list of eligible candidates posted in Business (with prior PM check by Rangers that eligible person would volunteer?)

- how is a nominee seconed? PM or email to Rangers I'd suppose then.

There are transparency issues here and at the same time the need for some 'privacy' when it comes to who nominates whom and who seconds whom. Yes – the Rangers can take care of many things yet the members still need a list to work from. How do you envisage that Voronwe?


Voronwe wrote:
We could ask people not to check the results until they vote, but would people really be able to resist the temptation?
Some will.. some won't. There is no way of enforcement. But I think it's a good idea at least to suggest it :)

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 8:56 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
We will also need to come up with a tie breaking procedure.


Top
Profile Quote
truehobbit
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 8:58 pm
WYSIWYG
Offline
 
Posts: 3228
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 6:37 pm
Location: wherever
 
I had thought that people just nominate someone and then the Mayor checks whether they are eligible, and if not let's the poster know that unfortunately their candidate isn't eligible yet.

Can't quite picture how seconding would work, though.

No problems with a poll, I think - if someone lets themselves be influenced by the results, rather than making up their own mind, that's their problem.
But yes to a hint that this isn't the idea. :)


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:04 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I thought we'd have a nomination thread. People can post in the thread to nominate someone or second a nomination that was already made. At the end of the nomination period, everyone who was nominated and seconded in the thread who is elegible and is willing to run will be included in the slate of candidates.

People who were nominated could also decline in the thread, of course, or accept after they were seconded.

I don't think any of this should be secret, or done via PM. Especially nominations and secondings ... I see no reason these should be private. We don't want nominations to become a mysterious process.


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:26 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
I was thinking along the same lines as Faramond. A thread would go up a month in advance, stating what date nominations would open and when voting would begin, and giving the eligibility requirements, of which there is only one - the candidate has to be a member for six months as of the date nomination begins. The month is to allow people to sort out with one another who wants nominations and who doesn't, who's eligible and who isn't, etc. Then when nominations open, people simply post their nominees in the thread and someone else seconds them.

That part of the process absolutely should not be secret.

The voting is a different matter. I've heard it said too many times, "I'm going to wait and see how everyone else votes." Especially if there are more than two candidates and we know there will be a run-off, what happens is that people don't vote for whoever has the lowest score because they don't want to 'waste' their vote. And they don't want to be seen voting against their best friend, even if they think someone else is more qualified.

I feel rather strongly that election ballots should be secret.

We can create a standing election committee that convenes a month before the election and conducts everything and counts the vote, etc. People should not volunteer for this, of course, if they are seeking a nomination. Would that work from others' point of view?

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
MaidenOfTheShieldarm
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:28 pm
Another bright red day
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 2402
Joined: Sat 12 Mar , 2005 10:35 pm
Location: Far from the coast of Utopia
 
Faramond wrote:
I thought we'd have a nomination thread. People can post in the thread to nominate someone or second a nomination that was already made. At the end of the nomination period, everyone who was nominated and seconded in the thread who is elegible and is willing to run will be included in the slate of candidates.
Exactly what I was going to say. :)

I see no reason why this shouldn't all be done in a thread. Leave it running for, say, two weeks. The nominator could say "I nominate so and so because. . . ", someone comes along, says, "I second that," and the nominee could accept or a decline. A running list could be kept in the first of people who have been nominated, and whether they've accepted or not so there wouldn't be repeat nominations.

_________________

[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:32 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
It's a job going through the voting ballots (email then I guess would be the best solution - better than PM since that is point-to-point comm only ) as Jny suggests a standing election committee. Works for me :) so long as the other things are public - managed by the Rangers with Administrator ID for easy updating.
Election committe should contain min. 1 Ranger though ;)

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Jnyusa
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:39 pm
One of the Bronte Sisters
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 5107
Joined: Tue 04 Jan , 2005 8:54 am
Location: In Situ
 
OK, I'll add that in blue to the Standing committee thread .... that thread is at a standstill right now anyway because we've got to resolve binding votes before we can finish committees ... so we can continue to discuss options here. Nothing will be chiseled in stone until the very end. :)

Jn

_________________

"All things considered, I'd rather be in Philadelphia."
Epigraph on the tombstone of W.C. Fields.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:42 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
I think votes should be secret too, ideally.

And I see no reason why we can't go for the ideal here ... so yes, I think an election committee that will validate and count the secret ballots would be a very good thing.

It's more work, but democracy isn't convenient, is it? I'd say have at least one Ranger on the committee, and the current Mayor, unless people think the current Mayor would be too busy at this time. Actually I think it would be nice if the current Mayor headed the committee and eventually announced who the new Mayor would be.

Last edited by Faramond on Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:46 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
I'm not sure that a whole committee would need to run the election. It seems to me that it could easily be a one person job. Why not have the sitting mayor run the election for her replacement?

As for how the nominations and seconding should be done, see Faramond, Jn and Maiden's posts.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 9:47 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
We should have at least three people counting votes, though. Not necessarily because we wouldn't trust the current Mayor, but just for the sake of accuracy and care.


Top
Profile Quote
Voronwë_the_Faithful
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 10:11 pm
Offline
 
Posts: 5170
Joined: Thu 10 Feb , 2005 6:53 pm
Contact: Website
 
Faramond wrote:
We should have at least three people counting votes, though. Not necessarily because we wouldn't trust the current Mayor, but just for the sake of accuracy and care.
Only if we have an IRV PM (or email) ballot. If we use polls, the computer would automatically count the votes.

The only problem I see with using polls and a possible second run-off is the issue of what happens if two candidates tie for second place. In that situation, the run-off would have to have three people, with the winner being the one who go the most votes in the run-off

And if there is a tie in the runoff? We'll have to flip a coin. :Wooper:

I still think the disadvantages of using IRV outweigh the advantages.


Top
Profile Quote
Faramond
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 10:17 pm
Digger
User avatar
Offline
 
Posts: 1192
Joined: Tue 22 Feb , 2005 12:39 am
 
Well, I don't think we should use polls anymore ... Jn's idea of a committee to count the votes makes more sense to me.

A secret ballot doesn't have to be IRV, of course. I think the questions should be separate.

1. Is this a secret or public vote?

2. Do we vote for a single candidate and have a runoff if necessary, or do we rank candidates to produce an instant runoff?


I also don't think we should ever have a second runoff with three candidates ... we need some way to break ties that occur at any stage that doesn't involve coins or random number generators. ;)

I don't know, perhaps the current Mayor could cast the tie-breaking vote. It's not ideal, perhaps, but I think it's better than a coin flip.


Top
Profile Quote
*Alandriel*
Post subject:
Posted: Tue 21 Jun , 2005 10:20 pm
*Ex-Admin of record*
Offline
 
Posts: 2372
Joined: Wed 27 Oct , 2004 10:15 am
 
Quote:
If we use polls, the computer would automatically count the votes
Not if they're entered the wrong way ;) I'd also rather see a committe for this, not a single person. The current major (once we have one) could head the committe if not otherwise engaged why not, but also 1 current Ranger and at least one other volunteer from the membership at large.

Ties.... that's a tough one. I'll have to sleep over that :)
right now.... it's wayyyyyyy later for me again

_______________
Resident witchâ„¢ [ img ]
[ img ]


Top
Profile Quote
Display: Sort by: Direction:
Post Reply   Page 1 of 9  [ 164 posts ]
Return to “Threads of Historical Interest” | Jump to page 1 2 3 4 59 »
Jump to: