Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Oct 22, 2015 5:43:23 GMT -6
Hopefully this is a teachable moment: I readily accept the outcome of the vote, but please notice the problems.
By failing to specify a timeframe for the vote, there was no way for anyone to know how much time they had left. MCs like Dama Litz or MC Xhorxh haven't voted yet. Since there was no announced deadline, anyone who might have reminded them, didn't know they needed to do so immediately. Votes of this nature sometimes last a week, a month, or any other arbitrary period, so there was no clear expectation of an expected end.
So when you set a vote in the future, we need to clearly and plainly say when the vote is over. Otherwise you can end it whenever a favored candidate is in the lead. I know this isn't what you've done, but it's a thing we should be alert for, in the future.
But maybe we should be glad not every MC voted, since if the head count had differed from the seat count, we'd be stuck trying to decide who won. There's no clear specification in the law, and a good case could be made either way. That would be a serious problem, but it's not one that should have happened.
So when you set a vote in the future, we need to clearly and plainly say how we know who the winner will be. Otherwise you can declare the winner to be based on your favored metric. Obviously, you didn't and wouldn't do this, but it's a problem to avoid... just to make sure everything stays fair and democratic.
This whole thing has inspired me to put a section about voting and legislative procedure in my Handbook pamphlet that I made!
Anyway, whole-hearted congratulations to the new Tuischac'h! I'm glad to see that done and hope we can get to work with it soon!
By failing to specify a timeframe for the vote, there was no way for anyone to know how much time they had left. MCs like Dama Litz or MC Xhorxh haven't voted yet. Since there was no announced deadline, anyone who might have reminded them, didn't know they needed to do so immediately. Votes of this nature sometimes last a week, a month, or any other arbitrary period, so there was no clear expectation of an expected end.
So when you set a vote in the future, we need to clearly and plainly say when the vote is over. Otherwise you can end it whenever a favored candidate is in the lead. I know this isn't what you've done, but it's a thing we should be alert for, in the future.
But maybe we should be glad not every MC voted, since if the head count had differed from the seat count, we'd be stuck trying to decide who won. There's no clear specification in the law, and a good case could be made either way. That would be a serious problem, but it's not one that should have happened.
So when you set a vote in the future, we need to clearly and plainly say how we know who the winner will be. Otherwise you can declare the winner to be based on your favored metric. Obviously, you didn't and wouldn't do this, but it's a problem to avoid... just to make sure everything stays fair and democratic.
This whole thing has inspired me to put a section about voting and legislative procedure in my Handbook pamphlet that I made!
Anyway, whole-hearted congratulations to the new Tuischac'h! I'm glad to see that done and hope we can get to work with it soon!