Iria Aristar
Blue Zenith Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.06.04 02:00:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Iria Aristar on 04/06/2008 02:05:55
Originally by: Inanna Zuni Edited by: Inanna Zuni on 28/05/2008 18:31:43 I am presently neutral on this.
Should someone not want the additional responsibility of being Chair then they should, clearly, be permitted to resign that role without resigning their seat on the Council.
Whether it should be the case that the incoming full Council should elect a Chair, as opposed to the Chair being the person with the best podpilot support is not so clear-cut. The present method has the benefit that is should be less problematic: the result is clear when the votes are counted.
A hypothetical: Canididate X receives the highest individual vote (I'm ignoring that the whole voting process needs a review for the moment) and under the current system would be Chair. However instead it goes to a vote of the new Council, upon which serve four members of the same Alliance, though in terms of the ballot they were in positions 6, 7, 8, and 9. They choose one of their number to be Chair instead.
Whether you consider that 'fair' or not is the question, but it is clearly against the spirit of what pilots voted for as there were at least five candidates receiving more votes than than the Chair.
As I said, I'm neutral on this for the moment ...
IZ
I agree w/ what Inanna said. However, I am not neutral. I'm against this proposal for the exact same reasons that Inanna is neutral for it. In my opinion, if the elected chair can not perform his/her duties then the chair position should follow the order of popular vote from the pod pilots. Neither the CSM nor CCP should EVER be able to call for a vote that changes who holds any CSM position without letting the pod pilots vote. Making this change would essentially destroy what CCP is trying to create.
Originally by: Grismar Having the chairman position rest with the member with the highest vote count doesn't seem to make sense.
I haven't read the constitution in detail, but I can see different ways for the CSM member with the most public votes to have some small advantage after the elections.
Some ideas that might work together and still give the majority vote winner an advantage: - the chairman position falls with the majority vote winner by default; - the chairman position has to be given up by the person holding it, starting an internal vote for a new chairman; - only CSM members who indicate they want the position of chairman can receive votes, if none of them want the position, it returns to the previous member holding it; - in case of a tie in the chairman election, the majority vote winner is the tie breaker;
My support for the basic premise at any rate, Grismar.
The suggestions outlined by grismar would be an effective way of selecting new chair, however i stand by the belief that the vote should not be internal but presented to the general community.
|