Challenging the Mayor's Position

[Shizensky]

Howdy, Y'all.

I would once again like to address a topic introduced during the Fort's foundation discussions. We came to consensus that Fort Triumph would not hold elections at regular intervals. Instead, a mayor would serve indefinitely until challenged by the citizens of the Fort. At that point, an election would trigger in which the mayor could attempt to hold onto his or her position. I would like to solidify this process as law.

My own solution is simple - a citizen can propose a challenge in the Town Hall, and another citizen must second the challenge. A second makes the challenge official and the election process begins.

[Benevolent Thomas]

Would we also like to codify the tournament format for elections as well? If we do, will we institute an opt-in or out-out (my preference) option as well?

[roavin]

Only when an election is not already in progress. Otherwise, sounds good.

I guess technically that could be abused by always running an election by always challening when an election is over but I guarantee you that my Very Honest Business would never do such a thing.

[Shizensky]

Aug 22, 2018 13:15:34 GMT -5 roavin said:

Only when an election is not already in progress. Otherwise, sounds good.

I guess technically that could be abused by always running an election by always challening when an election is over but I guarantee you that my Very Honest Business would never do such a thing.

This is a good point. Do we only block challenges during an election, or should we provide a window after the election as well? Maybe a couple weeks or a month where a mayor cannot be challenged?

[Deadeye Jack]

I don't really like the idea of using a bracket for challenges. The bracket was unique but it took a little long. I think if we want a challenge law we should look at TRR's as they have been doing challenges for awhile. We can tinker it to our needs. I think once one person challenges that should open up other people to also throw forth their candidacy if they so choose once they get the proper 2nding.

Alternatively we can do challenges for normal state of affairs but can breakout the bracket for open fields after retirement or resignation of the mayor.

[Sauron]

I liked the bracket challenges. Agreed it took a while but we can have an election committee set up of a few people. That should mean the time of each vote is kept and if people are busy in real life there is cover available to declare results.

[Shizensky]

I think we might want to shorten each round if we did a bracket again, leaving the last 2 or 3 rounds at the 5 day limit.

I can see where Jack is coming from, though. The bracket doesn't seem to make as much sense for challenges, but fits really well for a field going after an open seat.

If we don't do a bracket for the challenge, what system do we run? First past the post, or require at least 50% with a series of runoffs?

[Benevolent Thomas]

If we also allowed people to opt out, the amount of candidates could be less, cancelling out at least one round.

[Deadeye Jack]

Aug 23, 2018 13:06:46 GMT -5 Benevolent Thomas said:

If we also allowed people to opt out, the amount of candidates could be less, cancelling out at least one round.

I mean sure but it's still inefficient as an election system. All 28 (?) citizens were entered in this bracket challenge, and out of that how many were interested in the position and made an effort to get elected? 6 or 7? The first few rounds there wasn't much doubt in any of the votes. Opt out wouldn't solve this issue because the more inactive citizens aren't going to be around to withdraw their name from consideration.

If only 2 people want to challenge the Mayor in actuality the bracket doesn't even make sense because of a field of 3. Brackets make sense for huge fields. If less than 4 people are intent on winning the position then a bracket definitely shouldn't be used. If we do move forward with brackets for all election you'd have to figure out how seeding will work as part of the law.

[Benevolent Thomas]

I'm starting to come back around to the challenge system. Here are some thoughts:

6 months forced Challenge. I haven't decided as to when the clock starts on the 6 month frame, however. I'm leaning toward 6 months without a challenge triggers an automatic one, but I'm also comfortable with setting one in stone for every 6 months after inauguration day.

Should we leave it open for non-traditional election procedures, like the bracket, for when the office of Mayor is vacated? (retirement/CTE (without a challenge)/mod action)?

I also believe that maybe a third citizen should call for a challenge before one is brought out.

When an election/challenge comes to its completion, there should be a 30day minimum before another challenge is allowed through. If we go with this, should this be law or should it be a precedent we set in Town Hall?

[Deadeye Jack]

I think the 30 day minimum is fair. It gives a chance to the Mayor to get underway and have a fair shake. It's also enough to remove someone who has proven detrimental or completely inactive but gives enough time to not completely weaponize the challenge system to grind things to a halt.

As far as approvals for challenges I think it should take at least 3. 2 is pretty minimal.

With respect to forced challenge 6 months might be a bit long. When Shizensky was running he foresaw setting a precedent of like a 3 or 4 month term I think.

[Sauron]

I prefer a 4 month term that gives 3 election cycles a year, and I like our challenge head to head system. If possible the sitting Mayor should receive a bye in the first round.

[Shizensky]

I'm biased towards the 3 or 4 months terms, if we do indeed codify term lengths. 6 months feels too long in all but the largest of regions.

I really like the idea of a unique election system. It brings something different you don't see anywhere else and can get more people involved in the process, which is generally a good thing. A bracket might not always be the answer, but I like it as the solution to fill a vacant seat.