Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Communications with the High Council of Britannia.
User avatar
MalagAste
Grand Marshal (GL)
Posts: 101
UO Shard: Great Lakes

Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by MalagAste » Tue Feb 25, 2014 10:39 pm

After this last election seemed to cause a great deal of confusion I have decided that we need to implement some clear changes to the constitution to avoid any further damage to the community this is my proposed amendment:
Amendment 17-A-2.1.doc
(3.35 MiB) Downloaded 190 times
0 x


Image

Ra'Dian Fl'Gith
Citizen
Posts: 29
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Ra'Dian Fl'Gith » Thu Feb 27, 2014 8:38 pm

Truth in advertising, Willa and I have been working on this together to address some of the confusion that took place behind the scenes at last election -- the proposed amendment is as follows with commentary about some of the suggested changes from verbal discussion I was not part of.

Notes in red will not appear in the final document, but are here to convert some IC terms into OOC equivalents.

Notes in blue are based on discussion.

Proposed Amendment to
Article XVII, Section A, Subsection 2
to be amended to read:


2. The following electoral procedures will be used to ensure fair voting:
  1. A finalized ballot with the names of all candidates shall be published one quarter year prior to the election. (One quarter year is the equivalent of one week prior to the set election date.)
  2. A voting box shall be placed in a public place that is under direct supervision of the electoral officer, and a two-way teleportation device shall be placed at the High Council's meeting chambers leading to the voting box by the electoral officer in charge of tallying the votes for the election, and: (Essentially, this is to prevent any claims of vote tampering; only the appointed person will have access to the votes.)
    1. In order of preference, the electoral Councilor shall be the longest serving Councilor who is not also up for election at the time or otherwise recused from tallying; or a member of the public so appointed by simple majority vote of the High Council.
    2. The voting box shall remain in place for the full quarter year (again, one week) prior to the prescribed close of the election which shall occur at five minutes prior to the beginning of that evening's meeting of the High Council. (There has been discussion about this being only available for two days prior to election and for up until fifteen minutes before the start of the High Council meeting; I disagree with shortening it for three specific reasons: 1) People may not necessarily be able to get on during the election period in order to cast votes if it is limited to the two days prior because those will typically be weekend days, and while that is convenient for some, it is not for all; 2) Tallying the votes is not a stressful event even when we had 30 votes to count at a meeting, and people often plan to be at the High Council meeting -- letting the votes continue through until 5 minutes before allows people to vote in the normal progress of usual play as well; 3) There's no reason to make voting inconvenient, as we're all members of the RP community... it's not as if we're trying to keep DC* from getting extra votes at the last minute
    3. Any citizen who knows in advance that they shall be unable to vote during the election period may request from and provide completed to the electoral officer an absentee ballot prior to the end of the election period.
  3. At five minutes prior to the scheduled start of the regular meeting of the High Council at which the results of the election are set to be revealed, the electoral officer shall retrieve all votes from the voting box and tally all legitimate votes cast by citizens of Britannia who meet the following criteria:
    1. Must be at least fourteen years of age.
    2. Must have no outstanding warrants for arrest.
    3. Must not currently be serving sentence for a crime within Britannia or any official Britannian ally(Original discussion noted no convictions within the past 10 years, but I think it is fairer to state no current sentence, thus if a criminal was sentenced for 2 years, they could vote after, but if one was sentenced to 25, they could not; also, covers allies, but would not prevent a voter from voting if he had been convicted of a crime by say the Fourth Great and Bountiful Empire of Mondain's Armageddon.)
    4. Is not presently a declared Enemy of State or member of an organization so declared. (Originally presented in discussion as must never have been an Enemy of State, but this makes more sense to me as we may have warred someone, then later allied or annexed them, and even though they became citizens they would be prevented from voting just because they had once been an enemy... besides, in this fantasy world of ours, people swap sides all the time, are possessed by daemons, eaten by enemy dragons, et cetera... let's keep it simple. *grins*)
  4. The first order of business at the prescribed meeting of the High Council shall be the revelation of the results of the election, and the swearing in of any newly elected members of the High Council.
In addition to everything above, there has been discussion about the inclusion of one vote per person, an OOC consideration. I completely agree that voting should be one vote per person. This was not an issue in the early years of the Council, but it is my understanding that it did become one later on in the years of the Council, and so I understand the need to officially limit it to one person. The problem with inclusion of the phrase is that it's an OOC consideration in an IC document, which personally nags at my separation of game and roleplay.

I think the easier way to handle this is simply to make this an official understanding here on the forums, agree to it, and then for all electoral announcements outside of the game, keep the inclusion of the parenthetical phrase "(One vote per player)," and skip putting it in the actual document itself.

The reason I am pretty against it is because it's impossible to defend in-game. If I were to roll up with ten people, cast ten votes from "different people," we cannot prove that I did so, nor could we visit the High Court and sue anyone with the accusation, "Ra'Dian's player voted more than once!" It's just something we can't actually do anything about in-game. However, as a stop-gap to that kind of thing, we let the electoral official handle that verification, and just agree out here that it is, indeed, one per player.

The other thing I would hope to avoid is the effect of the one vote per player rule leeching out into "I've never seen you in-game before, you can't vote." As we hopefully continue to expand the community, it would be difficult to ensure that we know everyone ahead of time. We should not overcomplicate this, but if there are election irregularities, then we can work through them in manners that are fair. Plain and simply, we cannot possibly "legislate" for all out-of-character instances, particularly in attempting to do so while remaining in character.

Finally, for anyone wondering why I'm involved in this, Willa asked me if I would kindly assist her with some wording to help clarify the process because she wanted no ill will in future elections. I believe the above addresses the situations as best we can in-game, and combines the best of what I have not been privy to in discussion with what Willa and I originally proposed.

Further commentary and discussion are of course always welcome!
0 x
Image
Planets come and go. Stars perish. Matter disperses, coalesces, forms into other patterns, other worlds. Nothing can be eternal.

User avatar
Lord DaKaren
Site Admin
Posts: 970
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 2129
Character Alignment: Lawful Good
Guild Affiliation: Order of the Etheral Ankh
Guild Abbreviation: OEA
x 2

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Lord DaKaren » Thu Feb 27, 2014 10:58 pm

Okay, I have been sitting on this for two days, I too took a red pen to Article XVII...the whole thing (as there were weird capitalization issues).

I incorporated Malag's proposal, though it is heavily tweaked. I've tried to make sure that the electoral process is outlined from beginning to end so things are relatively set in stone, keeping the time scale somewhat vague in places so we don't overschedule or paint ourselves into a corner.

I also changed the word "officer" to "administrator" for the person overseeing the election so as to not use terminology already defined elsewhere in the larger document.

I think that all the bases are covered...but best intentions and all.
Attachments
Article XVII.pdf
(118.86 KiB) Downloaded 134 times
0 x
-Lord DaKaren

High Chancellor of Virtue of the High Council of Britannia
Archmage of the Order of the Etheral Ankh

Administrator of UORPC.NET
do you have the character?

Ra'Dian Fl'Gith
Citizen
Posts: 29
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Ra'Dian Fl'Gith » Sat Mar 01, 2014 4:31 pm

As I was reading through your suggestions, DaKaren, I realized that we should probably just go ahead and amend the entirety of Article XVII and clean it up a bit rather than just focus on XVII.A.2. You have some excellent suggestions, and I think we can compromise on a couple of areas.

First thing I did was pull the electoral procedures from XVII.A.2 and made them Section C, moving the Oath of Office to Section D. The reason for this is that we can use the same electoral procedures for Officers and Councilors from cities not covered by the Governors. I was reading through and it struck me that XVII.B.2.c.ii needed the same level of specification as XVII.A.2.

I changed some of your capitalization back -- Councilor rather than councilor, Mayor rather than mayor... titles should be capitalized, and Officer of the High Council is a classification, which is why it's historically been capitalized.

I added a maximum range for candidates as well to a full year so as to put a finite limit on how long candidates are accepted.

I finagled the B.2 stuff a bit to allow for appointed leadership in cities as well -- the current wording would have prevented say a Thane of Minoc (from the old days) from serving, and that probably shouldn't be the case, so just a minor adjustment to include "recognized authority" and "elected or appointed head of government."

I also distinguished the electoral process for Councilors from that of the Officers by making it so that electoral calls must come from WITHIN that community -- for Councilors it makes no sense that say a citizen of Tar Valon could call for the election of a Councilor for Arcodia.

I did consider merging some of the Officer vs. Councilor stuff into Section C rather than repeat some stuff, but I think for the future freedom to change as the times dictate, it makes more sense to leave them separate. Gods know we've changed voting procedures many times over the years.

For the "valid voter" clause, I still strongly believe that the same criteria we use for our elected officials should cover the qualifications of a voter. We don't prevent a former enemy of state from running for office or require that a former criminal wait 10 years to run for office -- likewise we shouldn't discriminate against potential voters. I've updated it to be the same criteria.

As far as the duration of the mailbox, let's meet in the middle at 4 days... this will address my concerns about weekend voters (voting would start Thursday at 7:55 PM CST and run through 7:55 PM CST Monday) while addressing your desire to keep it less than a full week. It doesn't convert nicely to Britannian time, but we'll just have to agree that the convention is four real-world days outside of game.

I also changed the "prove" an absence to simply requesting an absentee ballot... there's no good way to prove an absence, and since most would be OOC anyway, let's just leave that provision open.

Finally, I updated the Oath of Office from one quarter year to one half year... since High Council meetings are on a bi-weekly basis now rather than weekly, this would allow a person to be sworn in at the next Council meeting if they missed the election results meeting (which was the intent of the original limit... ensuring that they were sworn in quickly rather than taking forever).

Anyway... that's about the crux of my proposed amendment (attached to this) to the full Article XVII... I think, overall, it will clear things up a bit, and clean up the Article as well.
Attachments
Article XVII Proposed Amendment.pdf
Proposed amendment to the full body of Article XVII of the Sixth Charter.
(55.69 KiB) Downloaded 141 times
0 x
Image
Planets come and go. Stars perish. Matter disperses, coalesces, forms into other patterns, other worlds. Nothing can be eternal.

Tanda Knighthawke
City Governor
Posts: 106
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 153
Guild Affiliation: TGD/ The Grateful Dead
x 1
Contact:

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Tanda Knighthawke » Mon Mar 03, 2014 1:39 pm

"Article XVII: Electoral Procedures
A. Officers of the High Council and Justicars of the High Court are elected by public ballot.
1. Incumbent Officers retain their office indefinitely, however, a soft term‐limit of
six years exists."

My understanding of this is then Justicar falls into the category of Officer... thus Max Von Bayer's seat technically required a vote because the election was requested? With only 2 candidates for the 3 seats, 1 vote per person would have sufficed, correct?

Additionally unless some one calls for an election then all Councilors retain their seat as long as they wish to? Or this is only those who do not hold the "Governor" Title? As it states that Governors who win re-election keep their seats. Well until the abolish this whole Governor thing in game.

I like the newer languages better, they are easier to follow. I understand the one player - one vote. Much of this system has always come down to trust. Policing a virtual world is impossible. The other thing to remember is sometimes what looks good on paper you do not find out has a few kinks in it until you attempt to use it or live it.

Also one other query.. would it be easier if players who may wish to abstain to cast a ballot stating so? Thus eliminating the question as to if that player knew?

The 4 day voting time.. are you think Friday, Sat, Sunday,Monday or some other combination that brings in weekday and weekend days?
0 x

User avatar
Lord DaKaren
Site Admin
Posts: 970
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 2129
Character Alignment: Lawful Good
Guild Affiliation: Order of the Etheral Ankh
Guild Abbreviation: OEA
x 2

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Lord DaKaren » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:29 pm

Scattered thoughts...

I think I'm okay with most of the changes, what is now section A makes way more sense at the top then it did at the bottom.

I'm leery of proscribing how the non-Virtue cities choose their Councilors in too much detail. How often will anything under B-2,C realistically be used is my question. Right now, the only cities it would effect are Newcastle and Pax Dragotha. Where are they going to get the Electoral Administrators? If they do not yet have representation on the High Council, are they to come and request an administrator or do we let them handle whatever process they want to use on their own? However, with their ability to appoint leadership, they may be a moot point.

I'm mildly concerned that the absentee ballot issue could be abused. Though with an official ballot not being published until a week after one can request an absentee ballot, perhaps less so. I'm all for including people in the election process, but I do think some sort of line should be drawn to emphasize that we want people actively involved (within reasonable limits).
0 x
-Lord DaKaren

High Chancellor of Virtue of the High Council of Britannia
Archmage of the Order of the Etheral Ankh

Administrator of UORPC.NET
do you have the character?

User avatar
Lord DaKaren
Site Admin
Posts: 970
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 2129
Character Alignment: Lawful Good
Guild Affiliation: Order of the Etheral Ankh
Guild Abbreviation: OEA
x 2

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Lord DaKaren » Mon Mar 03, 2014 2:47 pm

Tanda Knighthawke wrote: My understanding of this is then Justicar falls into the category of Officer... thus Max Von Bayer's seat technically required a vote because the election was requested? With only 2 candidates for the 3 seats, 1 vote per person would have sufficed, correct?
Correct. Since the two running for Justicar weren't technically running against each other, they only required one vote each. If we'd had four+ people running, then numbers would have mattered.

That brings up a problem though, neither the Constitution nor the Court Charter outlines how someone becomes the Chief Justicar. The Constitution mentions seniority in Article VI-C,2-a, but not in regards to who IS Chief Justicar.

We'll need to fix that.
Tanda Knighthawke wrote:Additionally unless some one calls for an election then all Councilors retain their seat as long as they wish to? Or this is only those who do not hold the "Governor" Title? As it states that Governors who win re-election keep their seats. Well until the abolish this whole Governor thing in game.
Governors can stay Councilors pretty much indefinitely, since they have to suffer through the elections every 3 months anyway. However, say you, as Governor and Councilor of Minoc, are not re-elected this term. If you wished, you could stay Councilor until the new Governor selects someone else OR someone calls for an election for Minoc's seat. You could potentially be Councilor for "life."
0 x
-Lord DaKaren

High Chancellor of Virtue of the High Council of Britannia
Archmage of the Order of the Etheral Ankh

Administrator of UORPC.NET
do you have the character?

User avatar
MalagAste
Grand Marshal (GL)
Posts: 101
UO Shard: Great Lakes

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by MalagAste » Tue Mar 04, 2014 3:13 pm

I want to take the time to personally thank everyone who has worked on this project. I am glad to see interaction and would like to see such things continue. I look forward to an upcoming vote on the proposed changes and to having clear, fair and strong voting procedures in place prior to any more elections.
0 x
Image

Ra'Dian Fl'Gith
Citizen
Posts: 29
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Ra'Dian Fl'Gith » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:48 am

Tanda Knighthawke wrote:The other thing to remember is sometimes what looks good on paper you do not find out has a few kinks in it until you attempt to use it or live it.
It would be difficult to find more accurate words for this. *grins* A lot of the early days of the Council were spent adjusting for the sake of fairness and working to be inclusive. But sometimes, it just didn't go as planned.
Also one other query.. would it be easier if players who may wish to abstain to cast a ballot stating so? Thus eliminating the question as to if that player knew?
That's an interesting question. Personally, I think if someone chooses not to cast a vote, that's fine. I don't think we really need an official record of who chose to abstain. I think as long as we have clear voting procedures and a fair amount of time, word will spread, and those who want to vote, will.
The 4 day voting time.. are you think Friday, Sat, Sunday,Monday or some other combination that brings in weekday and weekend days?
Yeah, myself, I was thinking from roughly 8:00 PM Thursday through 8:00 PM Monday (five minutes before, but you get the idea). That way there's time before the weekend as well as during the weekend. Combined with absentee voting, I think that really covers all the bases.
0 x
Image
Planets come and go. Stars perish. Matter disperses, coalesces, forms into other patterns, other worlds. Nothing can be eternal.

Ra'Dian Fl'Gith
Citizen
Posts: 29
UO Shard: Great Lakes
Character Age: 0

Re: Poposal to ammend the Constitution voting process

Post by Ra'Dian Fl'Gith » Thu Mar 06, 2014 2:59 am

Lord DaKaren wrote:I'm leery of proscribing how the non-Virtue cities choose their Councilors in too much detail. How often will anything under B-2,C realistically be used is my question. Right now, the only cities it would effect are Newcastle and Pax Dragotha. Where are they going to get the Electoral Administrators? If they do not yet have representation on the High Council, are they to come and request an administrator or do we let them handle whatever process they want to use on their own? However, with their ability to appoint leadership, they may be a moot point.
Honestly, we're not prescribing anything other than the process involved if there are multiple candidates looking for that particular seat. The Electoral Administrator would still be from the High Council. It's probably not going to be used often at all. Remember, the "c" option is only the failsafe option. Most typically it'll be "a" or "b." In a case where "a" or "b" fails, then it moves to "c," which is the only time we're prescribing a procedure. In other words, if there is a community without some sort of leadership, they could still be represented on the Council, and here's the procedure.

In the case of Newcastle and Pax Dragotha, both have official leaders who may choose to sit on or appoint to the Council (and if they appoint, that process is entirely up to them, not at all prescribed by the Council). It's just communities where no leadership exists -- which at present is none, but there have been in the past, so at least there's a guide to it.
I'm mildly concerned that the absentee ballot issue could be abused. Though with an official ballot not being published until a week after one can request an absentee ballot, perhaps less so. I'm all for including people in the election process, but I do think some sort of line should be drawn to emphasize that we want people actively involved (within reasonable limits).
I mean, there's always potential for abuse in a virtual system. There aren't any good ways to handle it that don't rely on trust of our fellow players. My personal feeling is that we should always err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion... I understand that there's a danger that in particularly contested elections, someone might go call a dozen people and ask them to show up long enough to turn the tide of the election, but truthfully, whether they do it by absentee ballot or in character at the voting booth, we can't really do much about it unless we have real reason to believe it's just one person representing five or ten. Then it becomes up to us as a community to handle that diplomatically out of character. Believe me, I understand the concerns... but at some level we have to give in to trust.
0 x
Image
Planets come and go. Stars perish. Matter disperses, coalesces, forms into other patterns, other worlds. Nothing can be eternal.

Post Reply

Return to “High Council Open Forum”