[Draft] Amendment to clarify elections and candidacy

Thread purpose: To produce legislation to lay out a process by which candidacy may be selected for an upcoming election.

Reasoning: Presently there are no clear rules for candidacy. In theory, any position that can be challenged may be challenged simultaneously by any and all citizens meeting the requirements. This could become cumbersome and unwieldy.

Challenges: Allow flexibility for those eligible to run to fairly be able to do so, while minimizing excessive challenges for positions. Keep the process streamlined and straightforward enough to be executed with minimal oversight.

Points of Interest: Duration of candidacy nominations, how candidates are added to the list. There is also some potential overlap in this amendment for clarifying the voting process itself further.

Authors: Lun Noir, Acario, Beijuo

 

Submitted, did not pass:
ARTICLE III: ELECTIONS

Section 1. Regulation
Elections by the Legislature shall be by direct and secret vote and the victor shall be determined by a plurality of votes cast. Voting shall be carried out on a Capitalist Paradise Forum poll specific to the election, or two vote counters may be appointed to receive votes via telegram. In an election by the Legislature, the candidates shall be listed by the coordinator of the election in alphabetical order on any official polling ballot. The World Assembly Delegate election is not subject to these regulations, as voting must be carried out through Endorsement.

Section 2. Electors
Electors are defined as the players and not the nations. Each player within Capitalist Paradise who has current regional citizenship is allowed only one vote; puppet nations are not permitted to cast additional votes. The WA Delegate shall abstain from voting, and instead have the responsibility of breaking ties in general elections.

Section 3. Disqualifications

• No person convicted of election fraud by the Supreme Court shall be qualified to vote until they are issued a regional pardon.
• No nation may appear on a ballot which does not have current regional citizenship.

Section 4. World Assembly Delegate Election Process

• Announcement: A nation desiring to challenge the WA Delegate shall inform both the WA Delegate and the Minister of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) in confidence, via Telegram, of the need for an election. In the event that the WA Delegate intends to resign, the MoFA shall be informed via Telegram. The call for candidacy shall be announced by The MoFA and, if applicable, the resignation of the WAD on the Regional Message Board the following Monday of the notification being sent. If at any point during an election cycle the process is halted by more than 5 days due to inaction from the MoFA, the Minister of the Interior (MotI) shall assume the role of coordinator.
• Call for Candidacy: The window opens when the announcement is made and closes the following Friday. During this time, citizen players may nominate an eligible player's nation as a candidate. Candidacy is only confirmed when it is seconded by a different citizen player and finally accepted by the nominee. Players issuing or seconding nomination are ineligible for nomination. There is no limit to the number of candidates who may run for this position. In the event that no candidates are confirmed at the end of this window, the current WA Delegate remains seated. In the event that only one candidate is confirmed at the end of this window, that candidate automatically proceeds as the victor of the election. At any point during the election, a candidate may irrevocably forfeit their candidacy.
• Debate: A window of 10 days is opened, beginning on the Friday the candidacy window closed, for candidates to publicly debate on the Capitalist Paradise Regional Message Board and for WA member nations to endorse/unendorse the candidate(s) of their choosing.
• Flux: During these 10 days the WA Delegate may naturally switch between candidates according to endorsements received or lost. The Founder may, at his/her discretion, reserve administrative powers at this time.
• Appointment: On the 11th day morning, a Monday morning, the successful candidate will be indicated and commence his/her 90 day term of office as World Assembly Delegate of the Region Capitalist Paradise.

Section 5. Primary and General Election Process

• Announcement: The current President of the Legislature (POL) shall be informed by the WA Delegate, via Telegram, of the need for an election and will announce the call for candidacy on the Regional Message Board within 5 days of the notification. The POL may, at his/her discretion, appoint a member of the Legislature to be the coordinator of the election in their place, and may also revoke this privilege at any time. The WA Delegate shall be informed, via Telegram, of the intent to challenge for the positions of POL or Advocate/Arbiter General (AG). If the POL is challenged for their position, a member of the Legislature must be appointed coordinator. If at any point during an election cycle the process is halted by more than 5 days due to inaction from the current coordinator, the WA Delegate shall assume the role of coordinator.
• Call for Candidacy: A window of 5 days is opened, beginning when the announcement is made. During this time, citizen players may nominate an eligible player's nation as a candidate. Candidacy is only confirmed when it is seconded by a different citizen player and finally accepted by the nominee. Players issuing or seconding nomination are ineligible for nomination. There is no limit to the number of candidates who may run for these positions. In the event that no candidates are confirmed at the end of this window, the WA Delegate shall select one nation at his/her discretion regardless of confirmed eligibility, and announce a new call for candidacy against the selected individual. Should only one candidate be confirmed at the end of this window, that candidate automatically proceeds as the victor of the general election. At any point during a primary or general election, a candidate may irrevocably forfeit their candidacy. In a general election, this action does not result in the promotion of the next possible candidate from the primary election.
• Primary Election: If at the end of the call for candidacy, the number of confirmed candidates is greater than 5, a primary election shall be held. A window of 3 days is opened, beginning when vote counters have been appointed or the poll is created on the Capitalist Paradise Forum and the candidates are announced on the Regional Message Board by the coordinator. During this time, electors may vote for their candidate of choice. At the end of this window, no more than 5 candidates with the top number of votes shall advance to the general election. In the event that ties would result in more than 5 candidates advancing to the general election, advancement of tied nations is at the discretion of the coordinator.
• General Election: A window of 6 days is opened which shall contain a Friday, Saturday, and Sunday, and begins when the candidates are announced on the Regional Message Board by the coordinator. During this time, electors may vote for their candidate of choice. At the end of this window, the candidate achieving a plurality of votes is the victor. In the event of a tie, the WA Delegate casts the tie breaking vote. After the final vote count has been taken, the coordinator of the election shall announce the results of the vote.

Section 6. Miscellaneous
The provisions of this article are to be considered effective as of the date of its ratification, and do not invalidate or criminalize any previous elections.

Required Language Revisions to Magna Carta:

Previous Drafts:
Sixth Draft

 

Unless someone else would prefer, I don't mind taking the first stab at writing something just so we have something to pick at and refine..

 

Sure thing. But I'll throw out some ideas:

-Schedule: I agree with Beijuo, that "someone else may not have had the chance to respond." After all I was out of the game the last two-three days due to a car accident. Real life stuff happens. So one proposal is that the POL has to schedule an election no later than say two-three weeks upon a vacancy , give 3-7 days for nations to express their interest to run in a primary, the 5 (or whatever number) candidates in the primary with the most votes would then advance to the general election, where the one candidate with the most votes would win.

-Requirements: Having created a couple regions on my own (Westphalia, Islandia, New Earth), I noticed one problem was nations would express an interest in a position, seem active during the campaign, and practically become inactive once that position was attained. I also noticed a lot of nations register on forums and never post. Having an active government is extremely important, and while there is no sure way to guarantee that each candidate will be active, one way to root out those who are inactive is to set requirements. It will also show commitment to the region, that they are not just interested in attaining a position overnight and performing the duties required of it poorly.

From what I understand you have to reside in the region 15 days before you become a citizen. Why not set a 30 days minimum requirement to run for office? Also why not require 15-20 posts on the forum to show you're serious? The numbers can be altered as the committee, the legislature, the government, and the region sees fit. But I think it would be wise to have some basic requirements to hold office.

I'll post other ideas I have, but those are my top two at the moment.

 

Really? That's somewhat concerning... (no offense to Amn Voss).

 

I also agree that the timeframe is an issue. I agree that an election should be announced within two weeks of a vacancy, and that a 7 day window for candidacy selection may be sufficient. However, I also think that self-nomination isn't necessarily the best way to go. It could be that a candidate must be nominated by someone, and then that nomination must be seconded. This actually makes it so that someone requires the open endorsement of two people, which should mean that they have earned the faith of those individuals to be competent at the job. This should help mitigate people who try to run for a position without having participated or contributed to the region previously.
If this nomination process made it so that someone who issued a nomination were, themselves, exempt from running, then at the most extreme case we would have 2 voters to each possible candidate, plus our officials. That creates an inherent upper limit to the number of candidates while still producing a wide enough spread of voters. Of course, that theoretical maximum should never be reached, but it seems more fair than an arbitrary maximum number of candidates -- as long as someone gets nominated within the window, they can run. And if they are active enough, they will be able to meet that window.
Specifying an upper limit of final candidates seems reasonable, provided everyone who is nominated/ declares interest is permitted to run in the primary election. If that upper limit is exceeded, then it will be forced to go to a run-off (or final/general) election with the candidates achieving the most votes.

A concern is that assigning an arbitrary number of RMB posts will just encourage people to spam to meet that requirement. I'm actually not too concerned about this; someone who has contributed nothing to the region ought not to be able to acquire a nomination, or if they do that, they also ought not to be able to secure a majority of the votes. However, as Afforess points out, any sort of candidacy must require citizenship at the absolute minimum. This needs to be clarified, as currently there are no requirements.
I am personally of the mind that our officials should hold office using their WA nations, to help maintain regional stability. It also should help encourage proven elected officials to go on and run for the Delegate position in a healthy cycle.

As far as the elections themselves are concerned, there have been questions about puppet voting. Puppet voting has proven to be extremely difficult to detect. However, there is an inherent system built into NationStates to detect uniqueness, and that is the World Assembly. Narrowing votes to that would eliminate puppets, and it would help to increase WA participation in the region (and thereby potentially increase the region's security). However, it would also make CP a region which does not really permit dual citizenship, so that may be a hard sell. Easier would be to utilize a polling service, such as that available on this (CP forum), which could help filter out puppetry. If there were concerns about security or legitimacy of the technology process (I don't know why this would be a concern...), it could be coupled with the existing vote counter TG process, although that could prove cumbersome to voters.

The duration of an election is another question. I'm inclined to specify that elections should consistently take place for a certain number of days (perhaps another 7?). Otherwise, it technically leaves things open to run an election for an hour or a year. A framework for appealing for an extension to the voting period may need to be made, for extraordinary cases. Any thoughts on that?

Pressing post now...

 

This isn't asking for much at all, and, I believe, is quite fair to ask of a candidate. Why not make it 30 Days and 30 Posts?

Unfortunately because there is no law currently present, ANY candidate for ANY position would fall under a grandfather clause even if it was put into full effect during their campaign for office.

I second this; no pun intended. Not only does it does this show that someone else has faith in the individual's ability to function dutifully, but also legitimizes their own claim to said candidacy.

Should the limit remain at five? Should it be more? Less? We should probably consider how many people are ever interested in positions at a time, and then determine the average number of people who are relatively active in order to determine the best possible number of official candidates.

I think that those who are truly working to help CP grow will be noticed on the RMB. The community SHOULD be able to determine who is worth their time and who is not.

Yes, use the forums polling functions. Simply go through the ACP and cross reference IP's to make sure that no one is cheating by voting more than once on multiple accounts. Those candidates who violate this rule should be immediately disqualified and barred from at least the next election, and maybe subsequent elections thereafter.

It really depends on the positions members are being elected for. The bigger the position, the longer the candidates should have to campaign.

------------------

Ideas:

There needs to be a clause, or clauses, that specifically addresses cases in which one or more candidates opts out of the race for an office. The questions I have are:

1. Should potential candidates be able to replace those who opt out of an election if it is still early enough (e.g. day 1)?
2. Should official candidates who opt out of an election be allowed to opt back in without penalty?
3. Should potential candidates completely replace those who opted out of a race if only one, or none, of the official candidates opt out?

 

We could require 30 days. However, setting a post limit really is just fluff, I think. It can be met by anyone just by mashing some garbage onto the RMB for 30 posts. Restricting it by nomination may alleviate this.

Agreed. So, we should state that these requirements have an effective date, so-as to not make illegitimate any past elections.

We could specify the general election limit as a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 10, but at the discretion of the POL. This way, the number could flux as the POL gets a feel for elections. There may be reason to raise or lower this number. Again, I feel that the Primaries should allow as many people who want to run and are nominated in the election process, to do so. The purpose is to filter it down to the most likely candidates, but then to focus the votes down to those candidates who made it to the general election. And again, if the threshold is not exceeded, then the results of the primary election can be taken as the final results of the general election.

In any case, we may need to clarify that the winner of an election is the person to receive the most votes in the general election, rather than necessarily requiring more than half the vote.

Well, it may often be the case that the voters attempting fraud are not the candidates. However, in the event of voter fraud, we can specify that none of the votes that come from a duplicate voter be counted. As for who charges the frauster with the crime, that probably fall to the POL.

A fair point, and perhaps something else that should fall to the discretion of the POL (within an upper and lower limit).

1) I think that if a primary election has been held and it has gone on to a general election, other candidates should not be able to take their place in the event of a drop-out. However, during a primary, this is moot since any number of candidates can run.
2) I'm also of the opinion that backing out of a general election should be a serious consideration, and that it should be irrevocable. Also, once the call for candidacy has closed and primary elections are under way, a candidate ought not to be able to just step back in. I feel this would be disruptive to voters, who may end up having to switch their votes multiple times.
3) Again, I feel that once candidates are locked in for an election, the only option should be for candidates to be removed from the running if they wish to back out. Not for others to be added back in. Again I feel that this would be disruptive to voters and could create an unnecessary amount of chaos in the campaigning.

 

An additional point of conversation or consideration: Do we want to set the effective date of this legislation in such a way that permits the current election for Alternate Justice to be exempt from these this ruling? My personal feeling is that this would be best, so-as to not disrupt the work that has gone into campaigning and the votes that have been cast thus far.

 

No, not the RMB; 30 constructive posts on the forms.

We can write it so that the law goes into full and immediate effect when passes and is ratified to the constitution and write further that it this stipulation is only superseded in the event of an occurring election, in which this law law will be applied promptly after the new officer is elected and sworn into office.

This sounds like a fine idea, although I'm not sure the POL, or any single person, should have such power to set an arbitrary number. Instead, the POL should be able to set a number, but is still subject to checks and balances.

Agreed.

Yes, but I do think that a candidate who commits the fraud should be held to a higher standard and therefore more severely punished.

Perhaps we should define exactly what the POL is. If we know the exact role and extent of the office's authority, we can properly determine what to do in order to keep the POL in check while also not restricting the POL so much that its duties can't be done.

1) Fair point.
2) I bring this up because it happened in the '92 presidential election.
3) But what if there is only one? Does this one win by default? What if they all opt out? Someone has to replace them.

As far as I can tell, those in this current election are protected under a grandfather clause.

 

For purposes of this discussion, citing the part of the Magna Carta defining the POL:

This is, unfortunately, all the definition of elections that we get. And that is what we are here to resolve.

 

About the timeframe:
Setting a constant 7 day window for all election procedures will make some elections cycles incredibly taxing. A 7 day call for candidacy + 7 day run-off + 7 day general election. I dunno about you, but this will get tedious and people might stop voting later in the cycle due to election fatigue. Elections do need to be thorough however swiftness should also be a goal. I really think an election cycle should be held at a maximum of 2 weeks. This time could be divided up as a 4 day call for candidacy, 3 day run-off and 7 day general election.

I agree that citizenship should be a requirement to be a candidate.

The nomination and second system would help in narrowing the field; however, the field is still rather large considering our population. More than one run-off might be required to narrow down the field enough for the general election. So, maybe we amend the constitution from, "A fourth position 'Alternate Justice' shall be elected by the Legislature and seated by the WA Delegate," to "A fourth position 'Alternate Justice' shall be elected by the Legislature from candidates approved by the WA Delegate." This way the Delegate can narrow the field further from the nominated candidates. Such a change would also solve the problem of what happens if the Delegate refuses to seat the elected candidate. I do not think that this change would be out of bounds because I believe this was the constitution's original intention. <-- Possibly would avoid run-off elections as well. Though, I guess elections of Justices is only covered here... on the other hand, it might not be needed for Delegate elections since the requirements for possible candidacy are high and if a nomination system is in place, then this might be enough to limit the number of candidates. Which leaves POL as the only other elected position that would need another level of requirement than just the nomination system. The Arbiter General has the same language as a Justice election.

We need to specify in the constitution that puppets are not allowed to vote, so change the Inherent Right of Membership, "To have a vote in the Legislature," to state one vote per player.

The problem I have with "extraordinary cases" is its vagueness and we cannot possibly think of and list all the cases where such a clause would be needed.... Inevitably this leads to using interpretation.

 

The "but are not limited to" part is the problem because, in theory, this position now has no limit in the amount of power it possesses. In being both the President of the Legislature and the only clear member of the legislative branch, anyone in this position commands full control of the law. And if this is the "president" of a body, where are the rest of the legislators?

 

That is an excellent point. And yes, the constraints can be placed around justice and arbiter general positions. The candidacy basis for POL may require consideration.

As to the timeframe adjustment you propose, that would be acceptable. Although, I would almost want to go more for a 5: 3: 6 split. The call for candidacy need be sufficiently long. I was throwing out week intervals just as a figure to work from.

And, fair point about extraordinary cases. That is unnecessary to mention.

It is an odd clause. The idea behind it, of course, was put in place because it was not known if the POL would be needed to carry out additional duties. Perhaps someone who has been here longer than I can chime in and state whether or not the position has needed to be utilized in a capacity beyond the specified duties? And if so, we may want to consider removing that clause.

 

Can most of the positions fall under a two week policy? Sure. But should all of them be decided in a matter of two weeks? I don't think so.

Again, no one person should be able to determine who gets to run because it will ultimately come down to picking their own opponents and cronyism. What if we made it so they had to get approval from three individuals: the WA Delegate, any other official, and one citizen?

Agreed.

Can you give an example?

 

I believe it might be essential to decide them all in two weeks. By the time a third week starts many of the people excited about the election will become more uninterested and are likely to not vote if they have not already. If this election is any indication of future elections, then people will begin to avoid reading the RMB and hate all the election advertisements coming to them through TG. We run the risk of making the election process arduous which will make people more unwilling to participate in future elections.

So, you are arguing from the standpoint that the "and seated by the Delegate" should be omitted from the appointment of Justices and Arbiter clauses? The Justices and Arbiter should solely be elected by the Legislature? I actually would not be against that either... As the problem with keeping the clause will always lead to cronyism even in your suggestion. If there is a committee of three people (Delegate, another official, and one citizen), then the Delegate can almost get his choice de facto because the only officials able to be a part of the committee are either appointed into their position by the Delegate or the POL. The Justices and Arbiter cannot be on the committee because of a conflict of interest. The one citizen will in 2/3 of the cases, be out voted by the two government officials. In addition, anyone on the committee will effectively have twice the power as they get to decide who runs and get to vote. Maybe the clause should read that the Delegate will seat the elected candidate.

A perfect example is currently ongoing. The Supreme Court and POL agreed to extend the voting period to Friday due to an issue presented to the SC concerning the legitimacy of the POL limiting the number of candidates to five and that the spots were first come first serve. Since the voting period was extended, we can assume the SC and POL viewed this was an extraordinary circumstance. However, I do not view it as such. Regardless of whether or not the voting period ends Tuesday or Friday, a winner will be chosen. Said winner will take his position if the limit is view constitutional and if not, then a new election will be held. All that is really required is the withholding of the results until after the SC decision. The voting could end Tuesday and the results shown if the SC is in favor or results thrown out if the SC is against it. I currently view this extension as a possible exploit to buy more time to gather more votes.

If an extraordinary circumstance clause was added into the constitution, then I can easily see it being used for the current case above and an infinite number of cases in the future where the few can reason there is an extraordinary circumstance. There should be no such clause period.

 

I believe the clause is a product of the old constitution as the new one was built off the old one. If you look throughout the constitution, you will see the, "Duties include but are not limited to," clause for the Founder, the Delegate, Minister of Foreign Affairs, Minister of the Interior and the President of the Legislature. The clause is meant to be a catch all for new and future duties not mentioned in the constitution that fall within their respective rolls of government.

I perfect example of this clause in action is this committee:

The POL does not explicitly have the power to form this committee or to limit its meeting to 10 days; however, the power is implied by the "not limited to" clause and because going so falls within the POL's roll in the regional government.

 

I argued this point to make a compromise with the idea of a delegate making any choices alone. This plan is for potential candidates to be nominated by multiple users, two officers and one peer, which still reduces the the odds of it playing into one person's favor. The original plan I backed was Lun's, which was a nomination by two peers and no officers. I personally don't want ANY officers to endorse a candidate until their peer nominations have been counted.

Thank you for that, and I think it's an excellent point. So, what do you suggest we use as a sort of "umbrella" article to counter extraordinary circumstances?

I believe that this clause should either be done away with and each position should be given a specific function, or it should remain and be reformatted to say something along the lines of "This office shall include, but is not limited to, in such a manner that does not overstep its jurisdiction nor dictate unreasonable or unusual acts, the following list of duties:". I know it's sort of a mouthful, but you get the idea.

 

It is a slight concern, as potentially our WA Delegate could simply choose not to seat any justice besides the one that he or she wants. What are your thoughts on that, Acario?

Hm. The 'but not limited to' phrase is a pretty common one for job descriptions. However, for reasons that Beijuo mentions, it does leave some room for concern. The precedent I'd like to follow is the U.S. Constitution, wherein the articles defining job duties do not use such language.

That said, I don't believe that the POL is required to have legal power to organize a task force or committee such as this one, since we do have not been granted any actual legal authority within the region, nor (I believe) would declining being a part of this committee be considered a criminal act. The deadline, too, is not something which inherently has legal backing. It is not much different from my forming a political party, which requires no specific legal powers, and therefore needs no specific mention in the Constitution.
For these reasons, I think that we may (and should) remove the 'are not limited to' phrase. Our Constitution should be outlining actual duties, which the one holding the position is obligated to fulfill. They may do voluntary things beyond this for the good of the region, without requiring the weight of law behind it.

I hope this is clear...

That's a fair point, I'm good with not having such a clause.