STF

Discussion: Role of Assistant Election Coordinator

Posted Dec. 29, 2020, 6:45 a.m. by Admiral Joe P (Librarian / TECH Chairman / VCmdt) (Joe P)

Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Discussion: Role of Assistant Election Coordinator

Posted by Ben Z in Discussion: Role of Assistant Election Coordinator

Posted by Vice Admiral Sarah Hemenway (President) in Discussion: Role of Assistant Election Coordinator
Posted by… suppressed (3) by the Post Ghost! 👻
< snip>

I also would like to point out that the AEC actually would have a better view of the candidates than many in the club would in casting their vote in that by being in this position and seeing how candidates respond and react to issues or complaints or whatever off the boards they are getting a true flavour if how that candidate would handle issues that may come up in later points of their term if they were successful. But that may be a by the by.

<snip>

Cale
Two-pence worth

See, that’s exactly why I’m against the AEC voting. Candidates may change their interactions with the EC precisely to get that additional vote in. The EC and AEC are able to have frank interactions with the candidate without worrying about how that might affect a potential vote… That changes if one of them now has the ability to vote based on those interactions.

Daniel

Yes, I can see the point there. I’d still say keep the position and keep the current status regarding the vote then. :)

Cale

Maybe we should update the language to say something like at the EC’s discretion an AEC can be appointed subject to the following constraints <insert> and will be responsible for <Insert> and all other duties as assigned.

This way an EC like Dan doesn’t have to have an AEC if they don’t feel they need one, but someone like Cale can take one to either train or to have a neutral person to discuss things with. I have never been an EC but if I was one, I would definitely want the support of someone to puzzle things through with but unless everything was 100% transparent and there wasn’t asymmetrical information then it doesn’t make sense to let the AEC vote.

Geoff

So, my concern with the role of the AEC is that, when it was created, we had around 200 members, which meant losing two presumably experienced STF members to EC duties was not a huge deal. Now, we have a club around half the size and it becomes a little more daunting of a task; Steve and I struggled quite a bit to find some new people to assume the role instead of trying to get people to do it who had done so previously/recently.

What I am hearing is that the EC could use more support in their role in the form of a sounding board in the event of difficult decisions (or just sheer exasperation). In my ancient experience as EC, I went to the EC before me and to the President in those situations, neither of whom was running in the election but may have endorsed candidates, so wasn’t exactly neutral either, and I felt like the advice I got was reasonable and in good faith. This leads me to wonder if losing a potentially experienced STF member from the election process is worth providing that for the EC and how we can actually document that as the role versus how the role is currently specified. Could EGO serve as this sounding board? Could the sitting President? Could the EC from the past election?

Sarah
President

I’m not sure where I should post this response with the snips and further discussion, but I wanted to say that I support Sarah’s original two proposals (AEC being able to update MOTD as needed and AEC being able to vote in the election if not promoted to full EC).

I don’t personally believe that one vote matters very much (usually). But that’s exactly why the AEC should be able to vote. The likelihood that they are swinging things in one direction just by their vote alone is rather unrealistic to me (I would argue that the EC should be able to vote too, but that’s a whole other discussion that will just derail this one, so I’ll just plant that seed for now).

However, I don’t think the AEC should be able to endorse. The private conversations that AEC are privy to might effect their vote, yes. But if they must remain impartial publicly during the election, then just having their private vote swayed one way or another should not be enough to keep the parties running for office from being candid.

So if the AEC votes but does not show any partiality publicly, I don’t see how that would be an issue. If the election comes down to a tie, it sounds like the EC would break it anyways, so in this very unlikely fictional scenario, the AEC would ‘be the one to break it’ instead. I don’t think that’s the end of the world. The upside of allowing more people’s voices to be heard in every other much more likely scenario through the vote is worth it, I think.

(The only problem I could see with this is if the votes are 48 to 47 but the AEC vote makes it 48 to 48 and then the EC vote makes it 48 to 49, making the AEC and EC change the result of an election where the other candidate got the majority of the vote without their intervention. But this scenario is very very unlikely to happen)

Ben Z

I like the sound of this. I feel like it’s very similar to the idea of refs in professional sports leagues. They clearly all have a favorite, but what they aren’t allowed to do is have anyone else know who that favorite is – that sort of parallels the idea that the EC/AEC votes, but that they can’t publicly endorse/nominate/second anyone.

I don’t believe STF elections have really ever been close enough that one or two votes matters, so I think that’s pretty unlikely to happen. EGO votes, yes, Presidential ones, no.

Sarah
President

I don’t think we’ve had a final Presidential election decided by one vote, but we definitely have had the second place winner of primaries decided by single votes. Whether or not those votes were the coordinator is something that is supposed to be kept highly secret.

Joe


Posts on The Command Ship

In topic

Posted since


© 1991-2024 STF. Terms of Service

Version 1.15.9