AZ033 - 10.2.2 Elections -> Self-Nominations

[azrael]

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.

[Gavman]

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.

[azrael]

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?

[Gavman]

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?

[azrael]

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*

[JohnB]

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.

[without] a seconder? Other way on is intended, surely?

This has already happened in our experience... A candidate self-nominated within a few minutes of a midnight deadline expiring, and was subject to question as to why they left it so late...

However under the rules at the time it was valid, and only the intervention of another potential candidate who was observing, and immediately nominating themselves in response caused subsequent discussion resulting in both of them withdrawing...

It at least means that anyone playing such games in future has to have one other supporter who is a current PPUK member to support them; 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 recall that moment, the two involved were Jeremy Morton and Eric Priezkalns, for as I recall the data controller position, because it is an executive appointment, and for no other reason I could discern (at the time the Board did not yet exist). Well, at the time it was sorted out, and both withdrew without taking matters further.

However seconding makes it hard to do things like that, and hard to avoid involving more than a single individual with an axe to grind. Having been through some of that, and the type of internal politics that can result it isn't fun and processes or constitutional provisions that tend to work against such things get my vote

[Gavman]

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

[JohnB]

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.

I don't dispute any of this, I would concur with everything you say.

One thing I would say for where we stand today, is that while we have a broadly effective voting system for members in place, which means we can run any internal poll we like with a choice of methodology, not just FPTP but AV or Condorcet for single positions, or STV for multiple positions, at this moment we don't have an entirely satisfactory method of handling Re-open nominations for anything except FPTP.

We can make it just another candidate for an AV election, however that's not quite right, and extended to STV it's definitely not right, RON is not another candidate and should not be "eliminated" like named candidates who have put themselves forward, rather RON should accumulate votes under either AV or STV until either a candidate defeats the "accumulation of overall dissatisfaction", or it wins outright and a new election results.

That... needs changes to the way the count software performs, I believe, to implement correctly for STV. For AV, we could dispense with the OpenSTV tool we've been using, and count manually, if we wanted, because that's not too difficult; or we could use Condorcet, which changes things so that RON is effectively equivalent to the other candidates, in a way that doesn't happen with AV or STV.

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

I think I agree with everything you're saying; the point of a seconder is to put a barrier in place, and that is common in electoral systems, and a (perhaps blunt!) instrument to reduce people standing without serious intent or to cause disruption, and other aspects would be better addressed by a satisfactory re-open nominations / none of the above choice - if it can be counted without ever eliminating the RON choice, because that will almost always start small and escalate during the count process.