View Topic

There wasn't a Citizens' Platform topic for the proposal up for debate, so here one is now.

I regret that some members of the Underhusen were unhappy with the recent Speaker vote lapsing...unfortunately I suddenly became busy, and the election/post-election process in the region has become cumbersome to manage, especially when Thane and Underhusen elections are going at the same time. I have some ideas in mind to make it a bit easier and quicker to manage, and hopefully I'll have a chance to work on those during this term. However, there is a legal reason that things are done the way that they’re done: my role in Speaker elections isn’t grounded in the Underhusen procedural rules, but in the Fundamental Laws itself:

4. Upon the conclusion of the election, the Underhusen shall, under supervision of the Monarch, select a member of its own to preside over the Underhusen. Further procedure shall be declared in the Procedural Rules of the Underhusen.

The procedural rules are meant to merely elaborate on what process will be carried out that satisfies the three elements of this Section: that the process be carried out after the election, that the person selected as Speaker be a member of the Underhusen, and that the process is supervised by the Monarch. I do not believe it would be legal to alter any of these three things short of a constitutional amendment.

But beyond legalities, I’ll be honest, for me this is more about maintaining control over my own authorities and duties. I am dismayed that an attempt is being made to remove me from a portion of my own duties in the region without my approval or even consultation. I do not want to step on toes or offend anyone here, but I have always been clear that I expect to have final say over many aspects of the region, and that especially goes for my own role. Even when it’s a minor one, I feel that I have to object in order to avoid a precedent being set that any other person or group can forcibly control the role of the Monarch.

I'm sorry for any offence given by the proposed changes to the Procedural Rules, certainly none was intended. I don't think there's any real malcontent about the Speaker election, NS is a game and real life is obviously more important. You spend so much time and effort on Wintreath, which we all appreciate, and it would be impossible to begrudge you a few days of being busy with the more pressing issues in life.

The purpose of the proposed alterations was just to make the Speakership selection more streamlined and certainly not to undermine the Monarch's authority in any way. As you note, the Fundamental Laws explicitly protect that authority, so any reforms would need to conserve your involvement in the process (as you note the current proposal is probably illegal on that basis).

@Charax: For what it's worth, I don't think that you or anyone intended to undermine anyone's authority...I think you were trying to make less work for me plus make things more timely for the Underhusen, and I appreciate that. If I hadn't been writing this at 6am, I probably would have done a better job of conveying that.

It's just something that I'm very sensitive about, because obviously opening things up to more people and having more democracy is always going to be an easier sell than having one person determine the direction of things, no matter how much that one person invests in time and effort. To be honest, I took a day to decide whether I should say anything at all, because you always worry that you're being petty and that you're unnecessarily putting your foot down in a way that alienates people, and in this case it’s not even that I’m particularly dedicated to keeping these particular duties as they are.

But in the end I felt like I had to, because of the fact that it looked even to me a bit like other people were deciding what my role should be without me, and I worry that regardless of intent, the mere image that another person or group could do that would begin to corrode the foundation of precedent that the Monarchy rests on. If that’s the case, then it’s much easier, less dramatic, and (hopefully) less alienating to say something now than it would be a few months or years down the line, especially since I know that wasn’t the intent here.

I guess what I’m saying is that I would be happy to work with the Underhusen to figure out the best way to do Speaker elections. I’ve been trying to think of ways to have the Speaker election during the general election so that the UH can get straight to work as soon as elections are over. I just expect to be included when the topic is the role of Monarchy or the Foundership. I hope that you understand my position.

I guess what I’m saying is that I would be happy to work with the Underhusen to figure out the best way to do Speaker elections. I’ve been trying to think of ways to have the Speaker election during the general election so that the UH can get straight to work as soon as elections are over.

Suggestion: have people declare in their campaigns whether they will stand for Speaker, then have the electorate vote for their Speaker choice from the people standing; if there's an outright majority that person shall become Speaker, and if not, the newly elected UH goes immediately into a 24h/48h runoff vote between the two Speaker candidate with the most votes (if there's only 1 Speaker candidate who's elected, they obviously become Speaker by default).
Shaves the two days of Nominations off the process and saves you the trouble of opening both nominations and votes.

I guess what I’m saying is that I would be happy to work with the Underhusen to figure out the best way to do Speaker elections. I’ve been trying to think of ways to have the Speaker election during the general election so that the UH can get straight to work as soon as elections are over.

Suggestion: have people declare in their campaigns whether they will stand for Speaker, then have the electorate vote for their Speaker choice from the people standing; if there's an outright majority that person shall become Speaker, and if not, the newly elected UH goes immediately into a 24h/48h runoff vote between the two Speaker candidate with the most votes (if there's only 1 Speaker candidate who's elected, they obviously become Speaker by default).
Shaves the two days of Nominations off the process and saves you the trouble of opening both nominations and votes.

I think this is a very good middle ground that allows for a new Underhusen term to hit the ground running.

As you say, @Wintermoot, the proposal I put forward on Discord that Charax took up here in the forums wasn't designed with the intent to strip you of powers, but I can see how that may have come across. I think Doc's suggestion would allow you to retain the role you play currently whilst also speeding up the process for the future.

Suggestion: have people declare in their campaigns whether they will stand for Speaker, then have the electorate vote for their Speaker choice from the people standing; if there's an outright majority that person shall become Speaker, and if not, the newly elected UH goes immediately into a 24h/48h runoff vote between the two Speaker candidate with the most votes (if there's only 1 Speaker candidate who's elected, they obviously become Speaker by default).
Shaves the two days of Nominations off the process and saves you the trouble of opening both nominations and votes.

We would have to have it to where only candidates voted for Speaker, and then not include the votes of those who weren't elected to UH (satisfying the requirement that only members of the UH can select the Speaker). I would also suggest some kind of ranked voting, since there's always a chance that the person with the most votes for Speaker isn't actually elected to the UH...that may also help instantly resolve ties. But yeah, I think the concept could work.

@Weissreich: Reading your post in the UH forum, is there anything else you need from me? I am supportive of the changes we're discussing here, if that's what you mean by affirm my intentions.

@Weissreich: Reading your post in the UH forum, is there anything else you need from me? I am supportive of the changes we're discussing here, if that's what you mean by affirm my intentions.

My thoughts on the matter are that we've tentatively found a path for moving forward, but that establishing the format of the changes and (as a result) what role the UH and legislation will play in those changes is yet to be determined.

I believe people advertising their candidacy for Speaker as well as for the UH could be a good way to shorten the pre-term/post-election period, but we need to establish how that plays out in the first week of the term.

Do we think that as soon as an election is over and the results are announced, you would create a thread for newly elected Skifra to vote on Speaker candidates? How would we whittle down Speaker candidate numbers if all Skifra decide to run? What system of voting will be put in place?

There's currently two proposals, both of which I think are fine (I proposed one, but still ). I think it's up to the Underhusen to either indicate which proposal it prefers or wait to see if any others are made.

The first would basically be a streamlined version of what we're doing now. Candidates for UH would stand for Speaker election as they were standing for UH, and then after the UH election there would be an immediate Speaker election without a separate standing period. It would cut the time needed for Speaker elections in half.

The second is a bit more complicated, but would produce a Speaker as soon as UH elections are finished. Like the first, candidates for Speaker would stand as they stood for Underhusen, but then candidates for UH would vote for Speaker during the actual UH election using a ranked voting system. Afterwards, Speaker votes from and for candidates who did not win their UH election would be excluded, leaving only the votes from and for candidates who won, and a Speaker would be named along with the rest of the UH.

There's currently two proposals, both of which I think are fine (I proposed one, but still ). I think it's up to the Underhusen to either indicate which proposal it prefers or wait to see if any others are made.

The first would basically be a streamlined version of what we're doing now. Candidates for UH would stand for Speaker election as they were standing for UH, and then after the UH election there would be an immediate Speaker election without a separate standing period. It would cut the time needed for Speaker elections in half.

The second is a bit more complicated, but would produce a Speaker as soon as UH elections are finished. Like the first, candidates for Speaker would stand as they stood for Underhusen, but then candidates for UH would vote for Speaker during the actual UH election using a ranked voting system. Afterwards, Speaker votes from and for candidates who did not win their UH election would be excluded, leaving only the votes from and for candidates who won, and a Speaker would be named along with the rest of the UH.

I think my preferred option would be the first, primarily for simplicity's sake and secondarily for maintaining your role as 'opening' the new Underhusen term. I believe both would require an amendment to the Fundamental Laws.

There's currently two proposals, both of which I think are fine (I proposed one, but still ). I think it's up to the Underhusen to either indicate which proposal it prefers or wait to see if any others are made.

The first would basically be a streamlined version of what we're doing now. Candidates for UH would stand for Speaker election as they were standing for UH, and then after the UH election there would be an immediate Speaker election without a separate standing period. It would cut the time needed for Speaker elections in half.

The second is a bit more complicated, but would produce a Speaker as soon as UH elections are finished. Like the first, candidates for Speaker would stand as they stood for Underhusen, but then candidates for UH would vote for Speaker during the actual UH election using a ranked voting system. Afterwards, Speaker votes from and for candidates who did not win their UH election would be excluded, leaving only the votes from and for candidates who won, and a Speaker would be named along with the rest of the UH.

I personally don't see a need for rushing the Speaker elections like this. Typically if I'm in the UH, whether I want to try for Speaker depends heavily on who actually ends up being elected to be my fellow Skrifa. These things also can change during discussions with the Skrifa after elections happen. Moving the Speaker election to be during the UH elections would remove these nuances, and the fact that the Speaker election would be so Skrifa-election-dependent may also lead to surprising Speaker results which would remove the currently common practice where Skrifa often discuss things to reach a general agreement behind a single Speaker.

I personally don't see a need for rushing the Speaker elections like this. Typically if I'm in the UH, whether I want to try for Speaker depends heavily on who actually ends up being elected to be my fellow Skrifa. These things also can change during discussions with the Skrifa after elections happen. Moving the Speaker election to be during the UH elections would remove these nuances, and the fact that the Speaker election would be so Skrifa-election-dependent may also lead to surprising Speaker results which would remove the currently common practice where Skrifa often discuss things to reach a general agreement behind a single Speaker.

Is it a common practice? I'm not sure I've seen the Skrifa extensively discuss their vote for Speaker unless it appeared that there would be a tie. From what I've seen candidates stand, and then people post their vote without much if any discussion.

I personally don't see a need for rushing the Speaker elections like this. Typically if I'm in the UH, whether I want to try for Speaker depends heavily on who actually ends up being elected to be my fellow Skrifa. These things also can change during discussions with the Skrifa after elections happen. Moving the Speaker election to be during the UH elections would remove these nuances, and the fact that the Speaker election would be so Skrifa-election-dependent may also lead to surprising Speaker results which would remove the currently common practice where Skrifa often discuss things to reach a general agreement behind a single Speaker.

Is it a common practice? I'm not sure I've seen the Skrifa extensively discuss their vote for Speaker unless it appeared that there would be a tie. From what I've seen candidates stand, and then people post their vote without much if any discussion.

I think it definitely does vary session to session, but in the more active UH sessions that I've been in there was a lot of DMing going on around the Speaker elections.

I would be fine with candidates stating their intent to run for speaker in their platforms, but probably would look favorably to keeping the system that we have now rather than electing the speaker at the same time as the UH. I still feel as though the speaker (leader of the Underhusen), should be elected by the members of the UH, and not by the general public during the regular election period.

I'm not sure what can be done to streamline speaker selections however.

I personally don't see a need for rushing the Speaker elections like this. Typically if I'm in the UH, whether I want to try for Speaker depends heavily on who actually ends up being elected to be my fellow Skrifa. These things also can change during discussions with the Skrifa after elections happen. Moving the Speaker election to be during the UH elections would remove these nuances, and the fact that the Speaker election would be so Skrifa-election-dependent may also lead to surprising Speaker results which would remove the currently common practice where Skrifa often discuss things to reach a general agreement behind a single Speaker.

Is it a common practice? I'm not sure I've seen the Skrifa extensively discuss their vote for Speaker unless it appeared that there would be a tie. From what I've seen candidates stand, and then people post their vote without much if any discussion.

I think it definitely does vary session to session, but in the more active UH sessions that I've been in there was a lot of DMing going on around the Speaker elections.

For what it's worth, and my experience is limited to two terms right at the beginning and one term in 2016 if I remember rightly... I've never had this level of engagement over who would be Speaker. I'm surprised, considering the role is mostly simple administration of the duties and day to day running and holds little real power as-used that there would be such a high level of discussion around candidates.

My personal preference, as noted above, is for us to move to candidates standing for UH elections also making clear their intent to stand as Speaker - a process which gives ample time for people to discuss amongst themselves who they'd like as Speaker if they so desire to do so.

I then think Wintermoot opening the new Underhusen term with a "Vote for Speaker" thread, fulfilling both the FL requirement and the ceremonial opening of the term role that I'd like to preserve is the way to go.