View Topic

Wintreath October Underhusen Election
Vote Here!

Voting for the Underhusen elections are now open! You can vote for up to five candidates for Underhusen. You may also vote for fewer people by writing in "Abstain" on any slot you don't want to fill with a candidate. You may post your ballot in this topic, or PM it to me if you wish for your ballot to remain private. Ballots will be counted and the results will be given at the end of the elections one week from today.

If you need more information on the function and purpose of the Underhusen, please check out our Fundamental Laws.

Good luck to all our candidates!

Your Underhusen Candidates
This table lists each candidate, a link to their campaign, and the number of non-spam posts (any post made outside of The Dumping Grounds) and Discord messages they made in the last three months (in the format Forum Posts / Discord Messages).

Candidate Name	Campaign Link	July	August	September
Dawsinian	Here	0 / 0	22 / 147	7 / 94
ogunbiyi6422	Here	24 / 1,638	109 / 1,751	71 / 1,343
trader	None	1 / 539	12 / 275	10 / 255
Doc	Here	16 / 379	34 / 1,043	25 / 1,047
Barnes	Here	8 / 229	23 / 433	23 / 437
Sapphiron	Here	1 / 7	10 / 24	7 / 17
Gerrick	Here	33 / 12	55 / 0	24 / 2
Red Mones	Here	41 / 463	105 / 150	96 / 683
Chanku	None	5 / 386	33 / 396	1 / 157

Code: [Select]

[b]Underhusen Ballot[/b]
[list]
[li]Candidate[/li]
[li]Candidate[/li]
[li]Candidate[/li]
[li]Candidate[/li]
[li]Candidate[/li]
[/list]

Underhusen Ballot

• Doc
• Barnes
• Gerrick
• Red Mones
• Sapphiron

Underhusen Ballot

• Dawsinian
• Doc
• Barnes
• Sapphiron
• Red Mones

After deep and careful consideration of the pros and cons of each course of action, this is my ballot.

Underhusen Ballot

• Abstain
• Abstain
• Abstain
• Abstain
• Abstain

I continue to believe that no candidate is appropriate for the Underhusen, because it should not exist. I recognize that voting for candidates may lead to its destruction more rapidly than doing otherwise, but I equally believe that a strong, principled stance against the existence of the Underhusen is also an effective tool to promote its destruction to a wider share of the electorate.
Also, frankly, it's worked for me thus far so I don't wanna jinx it.
However, in an attempt to have my cake and eat it too, I endorse Barnes, Dawsinian, Gerrick, Red Mones, and Sapphiron.

Underhusen Ballot

• Dawsinian
• Doc
• Gerrick
• Barnes
• Sapphiron

Underhusen Ballot

• ogunbiyi6422
• trader
• Dawsinian
• Sapphiron
• Abstain

I find the idea of getting rid of the UH largely acceptable, even if it's not my preference. However, I'm finding the more recent proposals of making the Cabinet more vote-based/legislature-like as part of the replacement to be quite strange, undesirable, and infeasible. Unfortunately, that seems to be the route that the Burner party is currently taking, and I can't support that.

Underhusen Ballot

• Dawsinian
• ogunbiyi6422
• Sapphiron
• trader
• Chanku

I certainly don't have the impression we would transform the Cabinet into a legislature.
It was only on trying to understand the reason behind why you think this that I see why you'd think so; because of Barnes' statement/suggestion that "The new Council will discuss laws to be drafted and voted on by the Cabinet, whose thanes are already our elected representatives with additional duties." (Which, admittedly, I glossed over the 'voted on' part on my first look at it, so more fool I).
On the one hand, I'm not greatly enthused by the notion of more pointless parliamentary-formality makework myself.
On the other, I also acknowledge that the only laws that would be drafted are the same only ones the UH passes at this point - which are the de facto popularity-contest Commendations, Paragonships, etc.
That said, I think relegating that function to the Citizens' Council to debate and pass themselves would be perfectly satisfactory. But then again, this would be the sort of debates we would have should the Burners be elected into the UH for this final (or maybe technically penultimate, since by the Fundamental Laws, the necessary plebiscite on abolishing the UH would be during the next UH election) term.

Underhusen Ballot

• Dawsinian
• Doc
• Barnes
• Gerrick
• Red Mones

Underhusen Ballot 🔥🔥🔥

• Dawsinian
• Doc
• Sapphiron
• Gerrick
• Red Mones

1. Doc
2. Gerrick
3. ogunbiyi6422
4. Sapphiron
5. Red Mones

There were some tough choices this time.

I certainly don't have the impression we would transform the Cabinet into a legislature.
It was only on trying to understand the reason behind why you think this that I see why you'd think so; because of Barnes' statement/suggestion that "The new Council will discuss laws to be drafted and voted on by the Cabinet, whose thanes are already our elected representatives with additional duties." (Which, admittedly, I glossed over the 'voted on' part on my first look at it, so more fool I).
On the one hand, I'm not greatly enthused by the notion of more pointless parliamentary-formality makework myself.
On the other, I also acknowledge that the only laws that would be drafted are the same only ones the UH passes at this point - which are the de facto popularity-contest Commendations, Paragonships, etc.
That said, I think relegating that function to the Citizens' Council to debate and pass themselves would be perfectly satisfactory. But then again, this would be the sort of debates we would have should the Burners be elected into the UH for this final (or maybe technically penultimate, since by the Fundamental Laws, the necessary plebiscite on abolishing the UH would be during the next UH election) term.

Yeah so, like, I'm much more amenable what you're suggesting. It's pretty much the standard open assembly proposal that's been made in some form or another for years - an opt-in open legislature that votes on largely unimportant laws. (Which, like, considering that the Citizens' Council is kinda different from that right now, I don't think that's the best name for it but that's a discussion for another time)

What surprised me about Barnes'/Gerrick's proposal was the idea to add voting frameworks into the Cabinet - effectively making the Cabinet double as an upper legislative house. Mixing the two areas together just seems incredibly strange to me. I was further surprised when I asked Barnes for his thoughts on how this would work, and he said that the laws that would be passed during this system would be closer to administrative rules than the laws that we see today. So to me it seems like Barnes' vision is for an open assembly and the Cabinet to be working together on administrative functions in the region under a parliamentary framework. (Which, now that I'm thinking about it, is even more strange than I initially thought, since neither the Storting nor the Cabinet currently take a direct administrative role in the region.)

These things certainly would be discussed during the upcoming UH term. But as we are currently under a representative system, these sorts of debates should be happening now, during the elections, also. The specifics of course can be fleshed out later, but right now we're still discussing the broad ideas. The Barnes/Gerrick platform is the one that the Burners are all rallying behind (except maybe you, though you did directly endorse them lol), and therefore it's absolutely one that I'm going to question before making an informed vote. I want to make sure that if the UH we elect this term is going to get rid of itself, that we can expect our representatives to replace it with something that actually makes sense.

Underhusen Ballot

• Sapphiron
• ogunbiyi6422
• Dawsinian
• Abstain
• Abstain

Underhusen Ballot - My Vote

• ogunbiyi6422
• Dawsinian
• Sapphiron
• Abstain
• Abstain

Underhusen Ballot

• Excalibur
• ogunbiyi6422
• Dawsinian
• Abstain
• Abstain

Is Excalibur running?