|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 24, 2004 17:17:02 GMT -6
Current Senators
Atatürk : vacant Next Election : August 2004
Cézembre : vacant Next Election : November 2004
Florenciâ : vacant Next Election : February 2005
Maricopa : vacant Next Election : May 2005
Maritiimi-Maxhestic : vacant Next Election : August 2005
Mussolini : vacant Next Election : November 2005
Vuode : Amy Durnford Next Election : February 2006
-----
Because Atatürk is less than three months from its Senatorial election, there is three possibilities: 1. a partial election for the remaining months, or: 2. an early general election, or: 3. the nomination of a replacement, subject to confirmation of the Senats.
Under the circumstances, I would recommend the Governor of Atatürk to opt for an early election.
All other provinces except Vuode will go into Senatorial election in July.
Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jun 27, 2004 14:07:54 GMT -6
Excellent clean-up work, Marc!
Good to see you as (interim?) SoS. You're a godsend. Hopefully we can get the Senate rules restored to their pre-MPF days, where appointments can simply be made. I have some ideas for Senate election reform which I will share over the next few weeks, for whatever they're worth. And no, if *my* proposals are voted down, I won't quit the country. ;-)
Ben
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jun 29, 2004 13:17:19 GMT -6
Azul,
An idea that I bounced around some time back, dealing with Senate reform, was germinating in my head as we travelled around Europe. In its current incarnation:
Instead of having a fixed 21-month term of office, set a schedule of Senate elections so that each time the Cosâ is elected, there is a simultaneous election for the two most senior Senators. (I.e. the two Senators who have had the most elapsed time since the last election in their provinces.) Given an average of 7-9 months for a Cosâ term of office, I think this would work out, approximately, to a Senate term a little over 21 months.
The advantage here is that Senate races would always coincide with Cosâ races, guaranteeing higher (and more representative) turnout. In addition, voters could simply vote for a party, and all votes for that party would automatically transfer to the Senate candidate endorsed by the party in that province. Voters could also vote for independent candidates as well.
The main advantage is that no Senate race would ever be "forgotten about," intentionally or otherwise, a problem that has plagued the Senate historically in Talossa from time to time.
What do you think?
Ben
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 29, 2004 14:13:57 GMT -6
I like the idea, my only concern lies with this part: In addition, voters could simply vote for a party, and all votes for that party would automatically transfer to the Senate candidate endorsed by the party in that province. Voters could also vote for independent candidates as well. I do not like the idea of voting for a party instead of an individual for the Senator. the idea is that you may have more than one candidate from the same party as well. I think it is a good idea to hold the election at the same time, but the vote should should be to an individual and definately not linked to whatever the elector choose to vote for in the Cosâ.<br> Having the election concurring however is IMO an exellent idea, and I don't see a downside. Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jun 29, 2004 14:24:47 GMT -6
Azul Marc!
The reason I proposed the party endorsement option is the (lamentable but true) fact that not everybody in Talossa is a full-time politician. I would prefer living in a country where everybody was "up on" the issues and the candidates, but we haven't achieved that yet. So some voters might not be aware of individual candidates and their nuanced positions, but would trust parties to endorse candidates that were consistent with the values of the parties.
In the end, it's a freedom of choice issue (IMHO). Under my proposal, a candidate is free to run as an independent, without party backing, and to campaign as vigorously and as actively among the voters as he wants to. OR, a candidate can accept endorsements from parties and, if voters want to, they can choose to vote for the party and thus automatically apply their vote to the party's endorsed candidate. It seems like it serves everybody equally.
Ben
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 29, 2004 15:12:48 GMT -6
Ok, I see your point.
How would you deal with numerous candidate from a same party, should they first seek nomination from their own party.
Also would you have two separate ballot so to speak, forcing them to actually make a choice for the Cosâ and one to choose their Senator.
What I actually have a problem with is someone saying "I vote ZPT" and that the vote would automatically be credited to both party. I would agree to something like "Cosa: ZPT, Senat: ZPT".
Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State
|
|
|
Post by kri on Jun 30, 2004 9:41:31 GMT -6
The system I envision would allow parties to "endorse" candidates for Senate (one candidate per party per province only). The ballot would look something like this:
COSA VOTE ___ SENATE VOTE ___ PROVINCIAL VOTE ___
But, the "Cosa Vote" would take precedence over all other votes, if you leave the other votes blank. If you want to vote for an individual candidate for Senate, write in the name. Or if you want to vote for a different party for provincial government (this is something Furxheir and I agreed to, or thought we had, before the election), write in the vote--if you leave it blank, your Cosa party vote is credited to the provincial government as well.
Does that make sense? ;-)
I think this accommodates voters who are 'up on' everything, and those who aren't. A Senate race under this system would give candidates free rein to lobby voters directly and ask for a direct write-in vote, AND would permit parties to endorse candidates. It seems like the ideal solution.
BTW, do we officially have a Month of Recess for July? And how will the Senate races be conducted? Has anyone announced a candidacy yet? Do elections end on the 21st? Am I asking too many questions?
Ben
|
|
|
Post by seahobbit on Jun 30, 2004 14:27:02 GMT -6
BTW, do we officially have a Month of Recess for July? Gary had announced a month of recess for June, but I think he meant July, I am trying to confirm. I am working on that right now, I'll post something tommorow morning. Not to my knowledge. No, Art. IV:Sec 3 states: "The election shall take place between the 1st and the last day of the month", therefore it will end on the 31st. ;-) Marc Moisan, C.D. Acting Secretary of State
|
|