10.7 1 seconding competitors

[azrael]

Edit existing 10.7 from

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members standing for election themselves may not second other members. Members may only second one candidate per position.

to

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members may only second one candidate per position. Members standing for election themselves may not second other members for the same position except where there is more than one position to be voted for; in such cases members standing for election may second a number of candidates equal to the number of positions minus one.

Clarifies you can second people competing with you if there is more than 1 seat up for grabs.

[Gavman]

Why can't competitors nominate each other? I see no reason why they should not be able to? (There probably are reasons, just hoping some one can tell me)

[azrael]

The purpose of even requiring a 'seconder' is to demonstrate that there is someone else in the party who thinks you should hold the position and will vote for you. A very very low hurdle to weed out those who will get 0 votes.

If person A is a serious candidate, we should expect them to vote for themselves. Therefore person A will not be voting for person B. If person B can find no-one else to second them - they are, in practice, failing to meet the intended minimal hurdle of getting seconded (i.e. demonstrating they can attract at least 1 voter).

[scuzzmonkey]

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members may only second one candidate per position. Members standing for election themselves may only second others for the same position in multiple-winner elections. In such elections said member may second a number of candidates equal to the number of positions available minus one.

Proposed re-wording to try and make it a bit tighter.

[azrael]

says the same with less - I'm happy

[cabalamat]

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members may only second one candidate per position. Members standing for election themselves may only second others for the same position in multiple-winner elections. In such elections said member may second a number of candidates equal to the number of positions available minus one.

Proposed re-wording to try and make it a bit tighter.

I like this.

[Gavman]

"Section 9.9

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing.
Members may only second one candidate per position. Members standing
for election themselves may only second others for the same position
in multiple-winner elections. In such elections said member may second
a number of candidates equal to the number of positions available
minus one. "

I would like to formally submit that this section be re-worded for clarity such as

"Section 9.9

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing.
Members may only second one candidate per position.In elections with multiple positions a member may second a number of candidates equal to the number of positions available Members standing
for election themselves may only second others for the same position
in multiple-winner elections. In such elections said member may second
a number of candidates equal to the number of positions available
minus one. "

If others have better ways to reword please feel free to say - I just think this clarifies who can second and how many candidates they can second

[azrael]

I like the intention Gavin. Would like to see something shorter punchier, but saying the same and not containing confusion. How does the following work?

Section 9.9

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members may only second one candidate per position. Members standing for election themselves may only second a number of candidates equal to the number of positions minus one.

[cabalamat]

Or possibly this:

Section 9.9

Nominations may only be seconded by Party members in Good Standing. Members may only second one candidate per position. Standing for election counts as seconding oneself, therefore a candidate may second other candidates up to to the number of positions minus one.

[azrael]

I think there's a risk of that being interpreted that one can nominate and second oneself, or one is automatically seconded. But I like the idea of trying to include why in the clause. i.e. that you should support those you want to win. so where 1 seat, you second the 1 person you want to win. where standing, if there is one seat you can't second competition.

There is understandably an urge for seconding more people to create competition for the election - but that is an urge that should be left to those not standing.

Making the clause explain why exactly you can't second others when standing except where more than 1 seat is up for grabs is tempting, but runs the risk of getting too verbose if it is to explain and avoid further confusion.

[Gavman]

Can i just ask what is the problem with a clause being verbose?

[azrael]

I guess no real problem, if something can't be said in fewer words then so be it. But if it can, just seems neater and more efficient (for the lazy reader?).

[azrael]

Given there's a Board meeting tomorrow, are there any further comments on this?

[Gavman]

is the amendment with my wording being out forward since no alternatives were offered?

[azrael]

Until wording is presented to members to vote on I expect no wording is considered final, and in the absence of further discussion the most recent position the current one.

I'm trying hard to not answer your question directly - sorry!

I don't decide if this is the final wording, but clearly unless anyone presents a change (and until they do) this strikes me as likely to be the currently accepted wording for this proposal at this stage in the process.

[azrael]

this is actually a thread form a previous round, latest considerations at http://www.pirateparty.org.uk/forum/vie ... =76&t=4276