AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Discuss our Party Constitution and any suggested amendments here

Do you accept the proposed change(s)?

Poll ended at Wed Sep 08, 2010 10:43 am

Yes
1
50%
No - I oppose the intent of this clause
0
No votes
No - it needs some re-wording
1
50%
 
Total votes : 2

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby azrael » Thu Sep 09, 2010 11:58 am

Well.. lots of solutions ... glad there's good discussion on this. Do we need seconding? Frankly if you can't find one person to support you, no point in standing. But arbitrary to suddenly want 2 'supporters'. I can understand the concept that some positions are so important you want to even winnow out people who can find 1, but no more, supporter ... but 1 to 2 is not much of a gap.

I like the idea of renaming 'seconder' to supporter. But little point if we aren't having any positions requiring multiple supporters.

This clause, in dealing with self-nomination or not, is here precisely to get this sort of discussion going. I would be happy to allow self-nomination for everything, and limit seconding to a single person. If majority agree with that, I am happy to re-word the clauses accordingly.
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby Gavman » Fri Nov 26, 2010 9:35 pm

Playing Devils advocate, (i'm trying to do this where I can to stimulate more discussion)

If this is democratic then surely every member (who is in 'good standing' <- still hoping for more refinement of the principles around this) has the right to stand for any position provided that they meet the requirements (Good standing as mentioned, or are from the area for RAO, etc...).

On this idea, why should someone need to get anyone to second them in order to stand?

Azreal, you say it should be easy to get someone to second you but you in various places have admitted that the Party is small at the moment and it can be hard to engage members to do anything! So, for discussion why should you need to be seconded.

Who cares how 'important' the position is. Standing doesn't mean you will get the position, it just means you stand and still have to compete in the election.
* assange () has joined #ppuk
* Obama () has joined #ppuk
* assange slaps Obama around a bit with a large fishbot
User avatar
Gavman
Swashbuckler
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 am

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby azrael » Sat Nov 27, 2010 12:51 am

We are a small group, yet so far I am not sure anyone (someone correct me ... am sure they will) has been unable to find a seconder. As for the purpose of seconding ... I suppose seconding is intended to weed out those that aren't capable of even getting 1 other vote, i.e. time wasters. Yet are the 'unelectable' time wasters? People who don't get elected can still bring their views and increased debate to a campaign - which is surely a good thing.

I can certainly see the logic for not having too great a barrier to standing ... I am not sure a seconder is much of a barrier. That said, if it isn't a barrier and only exists to be a barrier - what is the point of it?
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby Gavman » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:00 am

I suppose seconding is intended to weed out those that aren't capable of even getting 1 other vote, i.e. time wasters


What about if nominations were open and some in the last hour decided to stand, now you could question why they left it so late but if nominations are open they still have every right to put themselves forward, but with a seconder we would be saying, nope sorry you don't get to stand even though you nominated yourself in time.

I believe that perhaps when the Party is bigger, there may be a case for introducing some mechanism for trying to prevent 'time wasters' (I don't like using this term - what constitutes a time waster? How can you identify a 'time waster' before the fact?). Even when the Party becomes bigger, I would probably still campaign for there to be no need for a seconder (although I would be open to be persuaded otherwise).

I think you have the same view as me if I read your last sentence correctly.

What do other Party members think?
* assange () has joined #ppuk
* Obama () has joined #ppuk
* assange slaps Obama around a bit with a large fishbot
User avatar
Gavman
Swashbuckler
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 am

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby azrael » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:05 am

As for my view. I think my 'not thinking too much about it' view is that seconders are traditional and normal and so that's what we should do. But after thinking about the purpose and necessity of it (especially in an online party where it isn't necessarily time being wasted, just space on a forum) I do question why we need it.

I don't know if I come down one way or the other yet.

I agree, i don't like the term 'time waster'. But at this late hour when thinking of what seconding is intended to bring to the process... all i can think of is stopping time wasters. It is not a nice term. And if that is what we'll essentially be labelling people who can't get a seconder ... that may indeed be good enough reason to *not* require a seconder and give *everyone* no matter how much they may be in the minority, to have equal chance at full involvement with the campaigns process.

*awaits the thoughts of other Party members*
Governor of the Board 2010-present
Former South-East Regional Administrative Officer (2010-2011)
User avatar
azrael
Party Governor
 
Posts: 1766
Joined: Fri Aug 14, 2009 12:05 am
Location: Canterbury, Kent, UK

Re: AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

Postby Gavman » Sat Nov 27, 2010 1:56 am

Ah sorry what I was trying to express is with a rule saying you need a seconder then this person would be prevented from standing, even though they put themselves forward in time before nominations closed if they did not have to time to get someone to post seconding them.

As for
it is not a large barrier, but means that one person cannot easily cause disruption like that without additional member support, and that doing so with the deliberate intention of subverting the election process requires conspiracy, which is one simple protection against misfeasance.


I do concede that a seconder does introduce the principle of conspiracy to one looking to subvert the election process.

However I feel strongly, regardless of motives, any member eligible by the other requirements should be free to stand for an election. Even 'if' they wanted to subvert, we must acknowledge that this party is founded on democracy and therefore everyone must be given an equal chance to stand and as such it is up to the members to vote and choose if they elect an individual, bear in mind that Re-open Nominations should exist for ALL elections (even if there is only one candidate standing).

It could be perfectly possible that someone that does not participate on the forums much and is not known, decides that they wish to stand - I do not believe we should place barriers to this.

It is up to members to question and engage candidates to identify who they wish to vote for (This could end up being RON).

When you start placing unreasonable and/or unnecessary barriers to entry (Which I accept at only one supporter, this may not be seen as such) there is a fundamental clash between such barriers and principles of equality.

If there are any reasons apart from as a barrier for entry to the idea of requiring a seconder I genuinely welcome hearing them. (Or any other reasons why having this as a barrier should be used).

John, if you feel that there is anything in your post that I have not addressed (I think addressed most of it, even if indirectly by stating that it is up to voters t decide who to vote for, not for the Party to put barriers in place to prevent someone for standing as a candidate) please point it out and I will be happy to, you never know you might find that it is something that I agree with ;)
* assange () has joined #ppuk
* Obama () has joined #ppuk
* assange slaps Obama around a bit with a large fishbot
User avatar
Gavman
Swashbuckler
 
Posts: 672
Joined: Wed May 27, 2009 9:12 am

Previous

Return to Constitutional Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
X
We use cookies to provide you the best possible experience on our website. If you continue without changing your settings, we will assume that you are happy to receive all cookies on this website. If you would like to, you can change how your browser controls cookies at any time.
You can also view our Privacy Policy
I understand. Don't show me this message again.