View Topic

I guess it's time for the UH to write legislation to that effect, then.

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.

There was a bit of a shift a year or two back, I think. Perhaps spurred by the fact that Chanku likes to reach out to all the Skrifa whenever she's making a bid for Speaker to see what people want, which then turns into long discussions/negotiations if the election is contested.

I agree that the Speaker position is mostly clerical. That said, if a Speaker wants, they can wield a large amount of soft power by agenda-setting. I remember under my first Speakership we got a lot done, and a significant part of that was that I used my position to keep the UH focused. (Additionally, Chanku's reforms have given the Speaker more power, as they can change up the offices as they wish, but I think that hasn't transformed the UH that much in the way Chanku had envisioned.)

Perhaps it may be a good idea for candidates to state some sort of intent for pursuing the Speakership. However, I still don't think it really makes sense for them to commit to that sort of candidacy that early; as I said before I think that sort of decision often depends heavily on who is actually elected. So I think you should give people time to change their minds, but if you do that then you might as well make it a traditional nomination period. It's only two days' difference, anyway; the UH generally is not so time-sensitive that such timeframes really need to be rushed.

Another idea to quickly name a Speaker: what if the opportunity was given in order of who got the most votes?

For example, the opportunity would be given to the person with the most votes. If they wanted to be Speaker, that's it, but if not, it would go to the person with the second most votes, and so on. If multiple people received the same amount of votes, the tie would be broken based on when each person stood for election, in order from first to last.

That's an interesting proposal, but I'm not sure if the tradeoff is worth it. For example, in the last election, the style of voting wouldn't have lended itself to this proposal. I imagine ties and such are probably not uncommon outside of the last unorthodox election either. I also think it's entirely possible that the people best equipped/most passionate about speaker are not the leading winners of an election either, so the speakership might go to someone who is not as interested (if they accept).