UDL Convention, December '10 (Official business complete.)

[Хahar 🤔]

IMO Chairman should be elected by all members.

One of the reasons I like the Council system is because it gives the Council a real responsibility, and so it lets Councilmen be involved in the party, so that power is not just confined to one or two people.

[Хahar 🤔]

I would support limiting members of the Council to one-time reelection, and disallowing reelection altogether for President.

The idea that Ogis proposed has merit, but I don't know if we could get enough interest in off months.

[Хahar 🤔]

I whipped up some quick bylaws relating to organizational matters:

1. The name of this party shall be the Union of the Democratic Left.
2. The symbol of the Union of the Democratic Left shall be the President.
3. The President shall be elected through IRV to a two-month term in even-numbered months.
4. The sitting President shall not be permitted to run for re-election.
5. The ruling body of the Union of the Democratic Left shall be the Executive Council.
6. The Executive Council shall have five members elected through STV to two-month terms in even-numbered months.
7. Members of the Executive Council shall not be permitted to run for re-election more than once consecutively.
8. The Chairman of the Executive Council shall be chosen by the Executive Council.
9. For a member of the Executive Council to be chosen as Chairman, the agreement of a majority of the other members of the Executive Council shall be required.
10. The President may be neither a member of the Executive Council nor Chairman of the Executive Council.
11. In the event of a vacancy in a position elected by the party at large, the position shall be filled in a special election held using IRV.
12. For the purpose of internal party matters, membership in the Union of the Democratic Left shall be conferred twenty-four hours after registration.
13. The Executive Council may expel a member from the party by four-fifths vote.
14. The bylaws may be amended with the concurrence of an absolute majority of the party membership and of two-thirds of those party members voting.

[Хahar 🤔]

All right, then, I'll vote aye on my bylaws.

Also, candidates for Council:

HappyWarrior
Kalwejt
Dr. Cynic? (Also expressed interest in Presidency)
belgiansocialist
polnut
Sewer Socialist

[Хahar 🤔]

Aye

[Хahar 🤔]

Purple? We're not a royalist party...

[Хahar 🤔]

I'm with Hans here. I do like red.

[Хahar 🤔]

Blue

It is a primary colour, and, not being used.

It is also the colour-of-choice for the US Democrats.

It's also the color of the right.

[Хahar 🤔]

Please nothing designed by committee. That is a death blow to originality.

I'm sorry, but I really prefer orange...

Red is done to death... Actually, I would like a gold color, but this forum's yellow makes me think I'm going blind...

No rose. Someone must be more creative...

How about a gold bird then?

Haha.

[Хahar 🤔]

I actually like the LibDem logo, but as I said, originality, I think is best. How about a meeting of two roads or something along those lines to celebrate both the more left wing and moderate members joining under one banner.

Makes me think of this:

[Хahar 🤔]

Wow...we have a lot of interest in the Council. I for one would not look askance at increasing the size of the Council to 7.

[Хahar 🤔]

Red is too predictable (dare I say, old fashioned)... why not... purple?

Why not purple?

We're not royalists.

We're not in 19th Century Europe, so we don't need to keep to colour interpretations.

I do like that colors mean something. I like that red is for the left, blue is for conservatives, black is for christian democrats, brown is for fascists, purple is for royalists, yellow is for liberals, and green is for moderate heroes. That's just me, of course.

[Хahar 🤔]

I feel like we've debated this near to death; none of us will suddenly change our minds. I'd like to see a vote on this. I'd also like to see a vote on expanding the Council to seven, if we may.

[Хahar 🤔]

Rank the following choices for official party color from 1 to 7:

[  ] Red       
[  ] Orange    
[  ] Gold      
[  ] Salmon    
[  ] Fuchsia   
[  ] Purple    
[  ] Blue      

Vote yes or no on the following question:

Shall the party bylaws be amended to replace "five" in Article 6 with "seven"?

[  ] Yes
[  ] No

[Хahar 🤔]

Rank the following choices for official party color from 1 to 7:

[1] Red       
[2] Orange    
[5] Gold      
[3] Salmon    
[4] Fuchsia   
[6] Purple    
[7] Blue      

Vote yes or no on the following question:

Shall the party bylaws be amended to replace "five" in Article 6 with "seven"?

[X] Yes
[  ] No

[Хahar 🤔]

My thoughts on the Council are that it's not too hard to change the bylaws, and if in four months it turns out that we need to reduce the size of the Council, we can. For now, a lot of people want to participate, and I'd like to see all viewpoints be represented on the Council.

[Хahar 🤔]

Are we going to count as STV or Condorcet?

IRV. Condorcet would lead to the selection of a color that most people didn't hate but that few really liked.

[Хahar 🤔]

Just ftr, how long does the vote have?

72 hours is the norm, although the latter vote may end earlier if it is mathematically guaranteed to pass (or fail).

Current results:

Orange	7	8	8	10
Red	5	5	6	8
Fuchsia	2	2	2
Salmon	1	1	1
Purple	1	1	1
Blue	1	1
Gold	1

[Хahar 🤔]

Can I vote?

Yes!

[Хahar 🤔]

I really don't see why running more than two candidates would be a problem. The system prevents vote-splitting.

[Хahar 🤔]

I really don't see why running more than two candidates would be a problem. The system prevents vote-splitting.

You're missing my point. It's irresponsible to run a candidate for almost all seats. 

I don't understand why, though. I feel like the more candidates we run the better it is, since we can get more people involved. This way, too, we can appeal to a wide variety of non-UDL voters; I think, for instance, that the votes Ben gets from outside the UDL will be from different people than the votes that Antonio gets.

[Хahar 🤔]

I see Hashie's point here...I would personally prefer an internal party mechanism on running a single-candidate, or two at most - I can see lots of opportunities for tactical voting from opposition parties.

While it might be more 'democratic' to let as many run as possible, I'm not entirely sure of the long-term wisdom of it.

I understand, huggy-lovey, progressive party etc etc.... but in the early stages of a new party, I think there's nothing wrong with showing a unified front and instilling a bit of party discipline.

I'm happy to respect whatever the party wants on this, but I think this election is a good chance to get our national presence established and we can't take the risk of overloading the ballot and having less predictable voting patterns.

It's Kalwejt.

But, like I said, this is a way for us to maximize our vote, by appealing to all sections of Atlasia. I certainly wouldn't want us to run too few candidates.

[Хahar 🤔]

The thing is, the system we use isn't Borda count, it's STV. First and second preferences aren't really necessary. If one of the candidates doesn't gain traction, then the votes will flow fully to one that does.

Especially since we're a new party and we don't know how strong we are, I don't want to take any chances when it comes to running too few candidates.

[Хahar 🤔]

Again, this isn't Borda count. Very high preferences aren't necessarily better than mid-range preferences. Let's say, hypothetically, that there are four party candidates, and my top two preferenced candidates don't do very well at all and get quickly eliminated. In that case, my third and fourth preference become my first and second preference; there is no intrinsic difference between my vote and the vote of someone who preferenced those candidates first and second.

[Хahar 🤔]

Official color:

Orange	8	9	11
Red	7	7	11
Fuchsia	2	2
Blue	2	2
Salmon	1	1
Purple	1	1
Gold	1

No determination having been made, the choice of official color shall be left to the Executive Council to decide at a later date. In the interim, the status quo shall continue.

Shall the party bylaws be amended to replace "five" in Article 6 with "seven"?

Yes: 12
No: 9

This proposal fails.