|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 3, 2014 9:44:19 GMT -6
Well guys, any thoughts/concerns about any of these Acts? 46RZ1 - The Time! Time! Time! elections really do take time amendment 46RZ2 - Fixing the Electoral Rules amendment 46RZ3 - Nomination of Litz Cjantscheir to the CpI 46RZ4 - El Lexhatx On RZ3 and RZ4 I'm a definite PER, unless there is an overwhelming outcry from my constituents in the opposite. I'm leaning CON on 46RZ1, and I'm not sure of how I feel about 46RZ2. On the one hand (regarding RZ2), no harm no foul, plus it is an amendment and so the voters will have a say in the matter if people really don't want it included. On the other hand, it seems like the SoS could do this anyway without the need for a law on the books to do so. Of course, these are just my personal opinions, and as a public representative of the people of the province of Maricopa, I'm open to suggestions, comments, snarky comments, whatever. So bring 'em on! (The Maricopan Town Hall thread that is currently stickied works as well, as does a DM or an email.)
|
|
Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă
Puisne (Associate) Justice of the Uppermost Court
Fraichetz dels punts, es non dels mürs
Posts: 4,063
Talossan Since: 9-23-2012
|
Post by Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă on Feb 4, 2014 8:10:59 GMT -6
Personally I would like to see 46RZ1 not pass. We just changed our electoral procedures and barely gave it time to work before scrapping it? I know there were problems last time but I think we should let it run one more time to see if those issues are ironed out. The same with 46RZ2. Obviously I believe you should vote PER on 46RZ3 as well as 46RZ4.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 4, 2014 8:45:30 GMT -6
Personally I would like to see 46RZ1 not pass. We just changed our electoral procedures and barely gave it time to work before scrapping it? I know there were problems last time but I think we should let it run one more time to see if those issues are ironed out. I disagree. It is true that the specific problems we had during this election may not be problems during the next election. The fundamental problem that the last election revealed is a lack of time during the election to detect and resolve unanticipated complications in time to still leave people a reasonable opportunity to vote. Adding 5 days to the election gives us a better chance of fixing unanticipated complications during the election, whatever they may be. If we keep the election period the same as it was last time, our only option is to anticipate and plan for all possible complications ahead of time -- a nigh-impossible task. Of course, a significant typo has been detected in the amendment, so I may vote against it purely to allow that typo to be fixed without requiring another OrgLaw amendment. But I expect to support it on the next Clark, unless someone comes up with some other brilliant idea in the meantime.
|
|
|
Post by Samuhél da Giatză on Feb 4, 2014 10:05:27 GMT -6
Personally I would like to see 46RZ1 not pass. We just changed our electoral procedures and barely gave it time to work before scrapping it? I know there were problems last time but I think we should let it run one more time to see if those issues are ironed out. I disagree. It is true that the specific problems we had during this election may not be problems during the next election. The fundamental problem that the last election revealed is a lack of time during the election to detect and resolve unanticipated complications in time to still leave people a reasonable opportunity to vote. Adding 5 days to the election gives us a better chance of fixing unanticipated complications during the election, whatever they may be. If we keep the election period the same as it was last time, our only option is to anticipate and plan for all possible complications ahead of time -- a nigh-impossible task. Of course, a significant typo has been detected in the amendment, so I may vote against it purely to allow that typo to be fixed without requiring another OrgLaw amendment. But I expect to support it on the next Clark, unless someone comes up with some other brilliant idea in the meantime. Are there any downsides associated with extending the voting period this way?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Feb 5, 2014 4:20:10 GMT -6
Are there any downsides associated with extending the voting period this way? The one potential downside I can see is that starting the election five days earlier leaves that much less time to prepare the ballot, or for parties to decide to register for the ballot.
|
|
|
Post by Munditenens Tresplet on Feb 16, 2014 1:49:09 GMT -6
I have taken into consideration everyone's thoughts on RZ1, but it seems that it has been withdrawn from consideration in this Clark anyways due to a clerical error. If a vote must be recorded, I will vote CON due to the clerical error. On the issue taken up by RZ1, it seems as though both sides have legitimate points: On the one hand, we should probably give our newly reformed election cycle one more chance before we get rid of it. On the other hand, five more days isn't too significant an amount of time to add on, and it would be nice to have in the even we do run into any problems. After some deliberation, I'm not sure I think that adding more time is the only solution to any unforeseen problems that might arise during the election. Elections are complex undertakings, and while time might help insofar as having more time to fix any problems, the fixes for such problems may not be something possible, or even allowed by law (not that I can think up an instance off the top of my head right now, though). At the moment, I'm still leaning CON on the addition of time (simply because I agree more with the "let's give it another chance" position), but I'm more open to the idea than before. Since we'll have some time before this comes up in a bill again, I'd love to discuss it more. On RZ2, I'm leaning CON at this point, also agreeing with the "let's give it another chance" position. My thoughts remained unchanged on RZ3 and RZ4. For those who don't feel like reading everything: 46RZ1--Withdrawn, but otherwise CON (and leaning CON on the issue discussed) 46RZ2--Leaning CON 46RZ3--PER 46RZ4--PER
|
|