Posted by Rear Admiral Steve Johnson (EGO) in Motion By Member For Modification of Election Rules.

Posted by Commodore Cale Reilly (STF Surgeon General) in Motion By Member For Modification of Election Rules.

Posted by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman) in Motion By Member For Modification of Election Rules.
Posted by… suppressed (4) by the Post Ghost! 👻
<snip>

I would like to address the issue of electing a president that was not nominated; that would be true except that, again, if the President resigns after election, the VP takes over. There is little difference here. The Presidential candidate leaves and the VP steps up. Just my opinion. As to the personal attack by JoeP in this request, I am offended and I request that his words be stricken and not considered.

Timothy Frogue

While a Prez candidate can step down during the term of office and the VP has to take on the role of President (been there, done that, please refer all question to my esteemed 2APDir :P) the VP usually has some experience in the role by the time that happens (technically it could happen on day 1 of the term, but that’s extremely unlikely). What you’re suggesting is that if at any point prior to becoming president, the president steps down, the VP gets take over that ticket, regardless of experience, etc.

These leads to a few issues:

1) As already pointed out, it essentially makes the nomination process meaningless. Two members nominate Candidate A. Candidate A names Candidate B as their running mate and then subsequently steps down. Under your proposal, Candidate B is not automatically allowed to run as President and name a running mate - even if Candidate B was unable to find two members to nominate them. That’s a bit of a problem.

2) For better or for worse, members generally vote for the Presidential candidate, not the ticket as a whole. Your proposal is that if the Presidential candidate steps down at any time - including during voting it appears - the VP candidate gets to continue running as Prez, with all of those votes - even if the voters think there’s the other Presidential candidate is better than the VP candidate who now wants to be Prez. That’s completely unfair to the voters, and turns the electoral system on its head.

3) You are giving more discretion to a VP candidate than a Presidential candidate. In the remaining rules - which you are not proposing to change - if between nominations and voting a VP candidate steps down, the Prez candidate can only continue running if the Election Coordinator believes there are special circumstances. If the VP candidate steps down after voting stops, the Prez candidate is disqualified without exception. What you are proposing is that if the Prez steps down anytime at all, the VP gets to continue running as Prez without the EC having to exercise their discretion. You see the inequality issue there, right?

There may be ways to renedy this proposal, at least so far as it is a bit more debatable - I’ve even made some suggestions further in this post. But I really am left wondering if this is a solution looking for a problem, rather than a problem looking for a solution.

While Joe may have been a bit more forceful in his original reply on this proposal, his underlying concern remains there. The only VP candidate I know who has had an issue with the rules is, well, you - when your running mate ran what was, frankly, a horrendous campaign, and got himself disqualified, leaving you as a VP candidate without a ticket to then run on. I’m not convinced that that result was a “problem” - the ticket’s campaign ended in a way that showed the ticket was obviously unsuited be in charge at the time, at least based on how that ticket was campaigning. In that sense, there was no “unfairness”. That is, there was no problem that now needs a solution. And I am not aware of any other situation where a Prez candidate steps down where equities and fairness should have allowed the VP candidate to still run. To a very, very large extent, the VP candidate is really an extension of the President’s campaign. If the President’s campaign is unable to continue, that includes the VP, and that generally makes sense.

Now, if I’m wrong, and there really is a problem here that needs a solution, at a minimum you should be mirroring the rule for when a VP steps down. That is, if a Prez candidate steps down after noms but before voting, the VP may be allowed to continue campaigning as Prez, but only with permission of the EC when there are special circumstances. After voting, the ticket is disqualified no matter what. This would deal with issue #2 and #3 I addressed above. It does not resolve the nomination issue. And to be clear, I’m not endorsing this proposal - I’m just saying that if we’re somehow going to to make this kind of change, that would be the starting point.

Daniel

Typo: In problem #1 above, the third sentence should have read “…Candidate B is now [not “not”] automatically…”. Reads completely the wrong way otherwise.

Daniel

I don’t see why this is an issue, nor do I think the wording should be changed.

A VP candidate is not a Presidential candidate in any way shape or form. The VP, myself this term, is there to assist the club and take on the responsibilities of the President if and only if the President is not in a position, temporarily or otherwise, to fulfill that role. Period. I am to this administration a place holder; there to ensure the smooth continuation of the club if he becomes indisposed. The club elected Dave, not me. They elected the President. If I, or any VP contribute anything to the ticket, it is that the club membership would be comfortable with that VP stepping in if necessary… that is all. I have no delusions as to that, nor should you Timothy. The VP candidate should not receive special consideration if their running mate is disqualified or bows out. You win or lose as a ticket, not as individuals.

James

First, JoeP…I did not present myself as a victim, I only used the situation as a way to establish where a problem exists; hence, you took a cheap shot.

You said what happened was “no fault of your own,” which is what I originally posted about. If you want to argue that it was unfair in the last post to summarize that as “present yourself as a victim” that would be a fair point; I apologize if you find that insulting.

But whether we call it victimhood or not doesn’t change the fact that your entire claim that there is a problem rests on that description. It’s not a cheap shot to ask if a problem presented by the person proposing something is actually a real problem.

Second, for the record, I tried to get Sean to follow the rules and warnings of the EC but I just could bit get through to him. Thus, the situation was not my fault.

The situation was your fault, because if had told Sean “No, I don’t want to be your Vice President because I don’t think you are capable of following rules” or “No, I don’t want to be your Vice President because I don’t know you well enough to work with you in that job” then the situation would never have happened. That is what you should have done instead. That’s what two other people told him before he asked you; I know because I was one of them.

Joe

Third, Daniel I like your solution. I just don’t want a VP in the future to be in that position. I think a small adjustment would not hurt anything.

Finally, I will again apologize for using the wrong terminology in bringing this request.

Thank you for listening to me.

Timothy Frogue

I’m just going to jump in here purely because this is now huge and I don’t know where else to put it. Purely based on my opinion of the desired change and nothing else said in any thread here my two cents are that this would be a bad move.

The reason I think this is because I don’t believe that you can adequately find someone who would make a good platform with you in the time allocated. More than anything you’d literally be finding someone to either stand on your platform as a figurehead President going along with your ideas or as a token VP who also goes along with your ideas. It’s unlikely to be a partnership where you’ll challenge one another’s ideas and build them together in that way because there’s not enough time. It would make me question if the person running is running truly because they want to help lead the club or if they want the position for the same reason some people like to collect ranks. It shouldn’t be a power position it is supposed to be a position of service to the club not the other way around. That would put me off entertaining the ticket before it got started.

I could maybe get behind the suggestion of allowing the VP in this case to take the president slot and find a new VP IF they can get someone to nominate them in the same way their running mate was originally, vouch for them if you will.

Cale

My sticking point here, especially if we just mirror what happens if the VP is no longer a valid candidate to what happens if the Prez is no longer a valid candidate, is the fact that the VP candidate was not nominated.

There is a big difference between the person you nominated, and the person that just happened to be tacked on as an extra. For example, if I nominated Kat for President, and she picked Joe as VP, I could feel very differently about that ticket if Joe suddenly was the Presidential candidate.

Now if we change the nomination process so that you nominated a President and a Vice-President. That would be a different story.

Steve

But what about Cale’s suggestion that in this scenario, one of the requirements for the EC to let the VP take over the ticket is get the nominations (or, I think ideally, confirm with the original nominators)?

I’ve been re-thinking my original position. I still stand by that the scenario described by Tim in his specific case isn’t a problem that needs fixing (sorry, Tim). If a President is disqualified for campaign rule violations, then the campaign is disqualified and over. It may seem unfair to the VP candidate, but the disqualification affects the entire campaign.

But that doesn’t mean there’s not room for improvement in our election rules. Specifically, although it hasn’t happened yet, what if the Prez cannot continue through no fault of their own (illness, RL emergency, etc), and there was a real partnership between the Prez and VP candidate. Does it make sense that ticket can no longer continue and the election is left between whichever tickets are left?

I’m thinking about the two times I ran as VP. When I ran as Sarah’s VP, it would make no sense at all for me to take over that campaign if Sarah had to withdraw - there was a definite inequality of experience in our ticket (and the club’s expectations for the experience required to be prez was much higher back then - having only one cabinet position, one Assistant Director position and three years in the club was considered just on line to be VP at that time).

But when I ran as Kat’s VP, that was a partnership in every sense of the term. We jointly planned a campaign together well in advance of the election, and I put aside my own interest in running as Prez to be Kat’s VP. And we jointly gathered a lot of club support going into that election. If Kat had to withdraw because of something unexpected like an illness or RL emergency, it would make sense that I should at least be able to put my case before the EC to see if I could have taken over the ticket.

So I think there’s room to vary the rules to allow a VP candidate to take over a ticket if the following conditions are met:
1) The Presidential candidate withdraws from the race rather than being disqualified by the EC
2) The withdrawal happens after nominations close and before voting starts (if nominations are still open, they can just go through the nomination process from scratch - we wouldn’t need this rule)
3) The original nominators confirm they re-nominate the VP candidate on the ticket
4) The VP candidate confirms they stand by the campaign positions put forward by the ticket to date
5) The EC agrees there are special circumstances to allow the request (this mirrors the current language for when a VP candidate cannot continue).

I could support a rule like that. It wouldn’t have helped Tim because of condition #1, but I think it still avoids a potentially unfair situation from coming up.

Daniel