Changes in Vice Delegate Elections

[QuietDad]

Just like the Assembly doesn't approve deputies in Regional or Foreign Affairs, there would be no need for them to be involved here either.

[Southern Bellz]

wrong thread sorry.

[Belschaft]

The joint ticket is primarily a barrier to people who don't decide to run till the last minute, or who are new and therefore lack the connections to secure a quality running mate. I don't see this as a massive issue, if only because these are marginal candidates; if you can't organise a campaign then you wouldn't stand a chance of running the region effectively.


Our laws should guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That means everyone plays by the same rules, not that the rules are made so that everyone can play. If you can't meet the very basic conditions required to run for the Delegacy, tough shit.

[Belschaft]

Just like the Assembly doesn't approve deputies in Regional or Foreign Affairs, there would be no need for them to be involved here either.

The VD is very different from a cabinet deputy, and the two cannot be realistically compared.

[Cormac]

The joint ticket is primarily a barrier to people who don't decide to run till the last minute, or who are new and therefore lack the connections to secure a quality running mate. I don't see this as a massive issue, if only because these are marginal candidates; if you can't organise a campaign then you wouldn't stand a chance of running the region effectively.


Our laws should guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That means everyone plays by the same rules, not that the rules are made so that everyone can play. If you can't meet the very basic conditions required to run for the Delegacy, tough shit.

 

I generally agree with this sentiment, but I also think when we can reasonably adapt the rules so that more people can play we should do so. As Southern Bellz has pointed out, having uncontested Delegate elections is a problem. It's a problem for our democracy if the only choices are Candidate and Reopen Nominations, because unless Candidate is particularly objectionable they're going to win by default. I don't think that should be happening in any of our elections, but especially not for Delegate. And that's nothing against anyone; it's not about individuals, it's about the offices.

 

I don't see the objection to having the Delegate run and, after winning the election, nominate a Vice Delegate for Assembly confirmation. This isn't all that different from what happens now. We don't really vote for Vice Delegate now, we vote for a Delegate and we confirm their choice of Vice Delegate by casting our vote for that Delegate candidate. We can just as easily, and perhaps with greater deliberation, confirm a Vice Delegate after the Delegate has been elected. After all, if we switch to this method the Assembly would be more focused on the actual choice of Vice Delegate -- rather than it being almost incidental, as it can be now.

[Escade]

I agree with Belschaft here who said it more sharply and correctly then I could.  

 

From my perspective, if given that elections take place regularly every April 1, August 1, and December 1, all candidates should be able to secure a vice delegate.  If they can't they are welcome to TG, PM and look for a person.  Past candidates have advertised on the RMB for running mates.  We can add a special thread created two weeks early that allows candidates to let others know that they are interested in a running mate or perhaps are interested in being a running mate. 

 

I'm against the Assembly legislating the Delegate's VD choice for reasons mentioned already. To reiterate, the delegate needs to work closely with the VD. Each minister is elected separately on their own platform and leads their particular area. The delegate basically facilitates the ministers work and tries to provide a vision.  The VD is the one person who is completely aligned with the delegate in assisting them. 


I'm open to advertising on the RMB and forums about election nominations two weeks in advance and creating a special thread for those who would like to run but haven't found a running mate yet. 


 

[Cormac]

But I'm not suggesting that the Assembly pick the Vice Delegate. I'm suggesting that the Assembly confirm a Vice Delegate chosen by the Delegate. That's not substantially different from what happens now: Voters vote for a Delegate and the Vice Delegate the Delegate has chosen, which is really a form of passive confirmation rather than election of the Vice Delegate.

 

The only difference this might make is that the Assembly might be more deliberative in confirming a Vice Delegate after the Delegate is elected than they are when the Vice Delegate is essentially tagging along on the Delegate's campaign. I'm not sure how, in TSP where all of our other officials are directly elected, that can possibly be seen as a bad thing. Aside from the fact that post-election confirmation of a Vice Delegate would make it easier for candidates to run for Delegate, it would also make the process for approving the person with the second most endorsements in the region more deliberative -- and in my view that can only be a good thing.

[Escade]

Yes, but Cormac what problem is this addressing?

 

The problem that there aren't enough delegate's running? There are usually at least two in most elections. This last election was different, I don't know why. 

 

People already are voting for a delegate and a vice delegate. If they don't like one or the other they have the option of voting for the other ticket or for RON. They have the option of asking campaign questions.

 

I just see that the Assembly already has threads that run on and on, sometimes in endless circles. The legislative branch of TSP is already extremely powerful and involved.  We need some balance with a judicial branch and executive branch. The executive branch is already pretty limited. It's checks and balances, not "everything by assembly." 

 

Wouldn't the option of allowing delegate candidates without a running mate get two weeks before nominations time to publicly look for a running mate, solve the problem of more people running?  And without the added step involved?


If you can't trust a delegate to choose their own VD then perhaps don't vote for them?



 

[Kris Kringle]

One problem I have with this separate election proposal is that it assumes candidates should start looking for a running mate as soon as they formally submit their candidacy. I might point out that any responsible campaign starts before the actual nominations open, because it takes time to find a suitable running mate and to develop a platform. I just don't understand how postponing the election of the Vice Delegate is going to somehow improve that. If the Delegate couldn't find a running mate before the election, why would he find one now?

Like Escade said as well, why is this a problem in the first place? We usually don't have uncontested Delegate races, and I bet certain people would be ready to step up and serve as Vice Delegate if they were asked. The point here is also to see why and who the candidate chooses as running mate, and how they work together during the campaign.

[Cormac]

Okay, the disconnect here is that you're arguing that I'm not trusting the Delegate to choose their own Vice Delegate. I'm arguing that we already don't allow the Delegate to choose their own Vice Delegate, at least not completely. We allow a Delegate candidate to choose a running mate and then we vote for that ticket, and in theory at least if the region disapproved of a Delegate candidate's choice of Vice Delegate they would vote for another ticket or RON.

 

If we completely allowed the Delegate to choose a Vice Delegate, the Delegate would appoint a Vice Delegate after the election with no vote from the citizenry. We already don't do that. My proposal isn't anymore "everything by Assembly" or placing any more or less trust in the Delegate than we already do. The region already confirms the Delegate's choice of Vice Delegate; my proposal only shifts when that confirmation happens.

 

I don't think the current proposal on the table would be doing everything we can to let more people run for Delegate. It still requires them to find a running mate, regardless of how much time or help they're given, which has the dual effect of potentially removing the focus from the Delegate candidate and their platform -- where it should be -- while also potentially not providing enough deliberation on the Vice Delegate. It's also burdensome on newer TSPers who may have trouble finding someone who is willing to take a chance and be their running mate, whereas it's probably not going to be difficult to find someone willing to be their Vice Delegate after they've already been elected Delegate.

 

If we really want to let more people run for Delegate, we should let candidates run as individuals and focus on their ideas and platforms. Then they can worry about choosing a Vice Delegate after the election, and it will also give the region a better opportunity to deliberate on the Delegate's choice of Vice Delegate.

[Kris Kringle]

Some people might not like this, but if nobody wants to be your running mate in the first place, chances are you need to do more for the region instead of going directly for Delegate. Like I've said repeated times in various threads, running for Delegate isn't just running for another office, so in consequence I would only vote for someone who has proven to be dedicated to the region. I also don't like the idea of people suddenly wanting to be your Vice Delegate only after you've been elected. When we vote for Delegate and Vice Delegate we are voting for a team, and I want to make sure that there is a relationship built on mutual trust. I don't think there is much trust if a person only steps forward after the election has been won.

Besides, people already have campaign threads where to question both candidates, and the choice of running mate itself. If the concern is lack of focus about the Vice Delegate, then voters need to ask questions.

[Escade]

Again my feeling is that it is a disservice to prevent a delegate from running with a vice delegate. To candidates and to voters.

 

Thinking of current elections in the U.S., presidents and vice presidents run together.  There is a reason for it because if the president dies then the VP takes over just as if I die or am otherwise out of the game Kris takes over. That is what candidates are voting for, one person who they expect to lead and the second person who they expect to work with the leader but also be ready to take over if needed. They elect a vision, a campaign, a team.

 

It is not difficult to really find someone to run with.  I could have run for delegate or vice delegate twice before.  The people who asked me were all nice, mostly players who had already held government positions. I chose not to because at that time I was focused on RA and wanted to establish a record of service to TSP. In fact my platform for delegacy also focuses on RA. It's why I think I got elected. 


I think it behooves TSPers to establish good working relationships with multiple individuals who are also doing great work in the region. Establish a record of service, be amazing, try something new, and do your best. 

 

Campaigning is hard work, planning, and being prepared to answer citizens tough questions. 


Kris, if I die I know you will continue my campaign of friendship and cooperation

[Unibot]

The joint ticket is primarily a barrier to people who don't decide to run till the last minute, or who are new and therefore lack the connections to secure a quality running mate. I don't see this as a massive issue, if only because these are marginal candidates; if you can't organise a campaign then you wouldn't stand a chance of running the region effectively.


Our laws should guarantee equal opportunity, not equal outcome. That means everyone plays by the same rules, not that the rules are made so that everyone can play. If you can't meet the very basic conditions required to run for the Delegacy, tough shit.

 

That's a good point, yes. Our current system encourages candidates to prepare a bit before the election - not decide "oh hell, I'll run!", when elections are announced. 

[Cormac]

I see our current system as unnecessarily burdensome and not deliberative enough in regard to the choice of Vice Delegate, but I've already made my case for that and arguing the same points over and over again is pointless.

 

I do think having an uncontested election for Delegate, particularly when there wasn't an incumbent running for reelection, is a serious problem. Escade is doing a fine job, so it's not about individuals, but it's about the system and whether people actually have a choice when there is only one candidate. The previous election wasn't an election, it was a confirmation. If we can foster a more open system we should do that and I don't think the currently popular suggestion goes far enough in that direction.

[Rebel-topia]

To be fair, Bels and I were going to run, then decided to not run for reelection.

 

If this is really a problem, maybe we should go back to the old system; eliminate the VD position and the highest endo'd CSS member takes the delegate seat until a new delegate is elected via normal elections/special election. (/sarcasm)

[Southern Bellz]

I don't think not being able to find a running mate is a reflection on someones lack of effort in the region. What if the people who want to run with me are running for cabinet or even for delegate?


I agree with cormacs suggestion.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Unibot]

What if the people who want to run with me are running for cabinet or even for delegate?

 

Then they should really think about what they want to do. 

[Unibot]

To be fair, Bels and I were going to run, then decided to not run for reelection.

 

If this is really a problem, maybe we should go back to the old system; eliminate the VD position and the highest endo'd CSS member takes the delegate seat until a new delegate is elected via normal elections/special election. (/sarcasm)

 

But is this really a problem?? The only example brought up so far is SB wanting to run but HEM not getting around to posting his campaign update ... which really is not the fault of the law.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I wanted to run but RT was already taken as a running mate. All others were either running for other office or not running at all

[Southern Bellz]

I wanted to run but RT was already taken as a running mate. All others were either running for other office or not running at all

 

Is this the type of system we want?  I hope not.

[Cormac]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Rebeltopia" data-cid="114232" data-time="1389887326">
<div>
To be fair, Bels and I were going to run, then decided to not run for reelection.

 

If this is really a problem, maybe we should go back to the old system; eliminate the VD position and the highest endo'd CSS member takes the delegate seat until a new delegate is elected via normal elections/special election. (/sarcasm)

 

But is this really a problem?? The only example brought up so far is SB wanting to run but HEM not getting around to posting his campaign update ... which really is not the fault of the law.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

The other example being brought up is our previous, uncontested Delegate election. If we're having trouble getting at least enough people to run for office so that we can have two candidates and a real choice, when the incumbent Delegate isn't even running for reelection, in a Feeder, there is a problem.

[Drugged Monkeys]

I vote for it to be changed. Would someone like to write a proposal for seperating the two ballots or for changing it to electing just the delgate?

 

I will try to do somehting when I get home today

[Punk D]

I have no opinion on this either way, honestly. The paradigm Cormac established several posts earlier seems a bit semantic to me. 

 

Thus, if we remain as we are or change, I don't see much of a benefit or harm in either scenario.

[Unibot]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Drugged Monkeys" data-cid="114292" data-time="1389919773">
<div>
I wanted to run but RT was already taken as a running mate. All others were either running for other office or not running at all

 

Is this the type of system we want?  I hope not.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Yes. The system encouraged Drugged Monkeys to look for other people to consider as a running mate, instead of pursuing the same old person who runs for every cabinet position. That's good. Upsets the status quo.

[Cormac]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Southern Bellz" data-cid="114305" data-time="1389929303">
<div>
 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Drugged Monkeys" data-cid="114292" data-time="1389919773">
<div>
I wanted to run but RT was already taken as a running mate. All others were either running for other office or not running at all

 

Is this the type of system we want?  I hope not.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

Yes. The system encouraged Drugged Monkeys to look for other people to consider as a running mate, instead of pursuing the same old person who runs for every cabinet position. That's good. Upsets the status quo.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

But... he didn't run at all, did he?