HAEV Discussion Thread

[Peter]

For the moment I suggest this acts as our public thread for deliberations.

I quote below our statutory mandate for reference.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

We will need a presiding officer, and a set of binding guidelines. I'll post my thoughts on guidelines in my next reply.

[Peter]

My first vision of our operations would be as follows:

- The guidelines will lay out general activity requirements that members have to meet to maintain their registration.
- On the 1st of every month, a list of voters not meeting those requirements shall be compiled and made publically available.
- Members of the public/voters themselves shall then be able to make arguments to save voters from the chop.
- The HAEV shall then vote on amendments to the list (i.e. to remove people from the list)
- The HAEV shall then vote on the final list after amendment as a whole.

This setup has the following benefits
- It maintains a level of objectivity from the general activity requirements
- It allows some discretion because the committee can remove people from the delete list
- It allows a bar against partisan manoeuvres - I will personally block the entire list if members try to amend the lists in a partisan way.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Congratulations to the 3 new HAEV members, I'm sure that you'll do a great job.

I fully agree with Peter's idea. This will be the best way for you to work.

[Hash]

I think Peter's ideas are right on the ball, and it is a further guarantee against the transformation of this into a partisan body.

[Purple State]

I especially like the public comment period that would be established. This seems an efficient and straightforward mechanism. The challenge lies in establishing that first step, but I trust you guys will handle this well.

[Barnes]

I quite like this.

[Hash]

I especially like the public comment period that would be established. This seems an efficient and straightforward mechanism. The challenge lies in establishing that first step, but I trust you guys will handle this well.

I just hope that the caudilhos of the parties won't use the public comment period as a chance to save their zombies.

[Antonio the Sixth]

FYI, you have a Wiki page now.

[Barnes]

FYI, you have a Wiki page now.

Thank you very much!

[Marokai Backbeat]

My first vision of our operations would be as follows:

- The guidelines will lay out general activity requirements that members have to meet to maintain their registration.
- On the 1st of every month, a list of voters not meeting those requirements shall be compiled and made publically available.
- Members of the public/voters themselves shall then be able to make arguments to save voters from the chop.
- The HAEV shall then vote on amendments to the list (i.e. to remove people from the list)
- The HAEV shall then vote on the final list after amendment as a whole.

This setup has the following benefits
- It maintains a level of objectivity from the general activity requirements
- It allows some discretion because the committee can remove people from the delete list
- It allows a bar against partisan manoeuvres - I will personally block the entire list if members try to amend the lists in a partisan way.

Forgive the confusion, but from the way it sounds, this would set up the process to just eliminate a large swathe of voters in one fell swoop, which was not what I imagined this organization being. I thought it was going to be a case-by-case basis of elimination, and I must say if it truly is the former, I very much regret my initial support of this board.

[Antonio the Sixth]

My first vision of our operations would be as follows:

- The guidelines will lay out general activity requirements that members have to meet to maintain their registration.
- On the 1st of every month, a list of voters not meeting those requirements shall be compiled and made publically available.
- Members of the public/voters themselves shall then be able to make arguments to save voters from the chop.
- The HAEV shall then vote on amendments to the list (i.e. to remove people from the list)
- The HAEV shall then vote on the final list after amendment as a whole.

This setup has the following benefits
- It maintains a level of objectivity from the general activity requirements
- It allows some discretion because the committee can remove people from the delete list
- It allows a bar against partisan manoeuvres - I will personally block the entire list if members try to amend the lists in a partisan way.

Forgive the confusion, but from the way it sounds, this would set up the process to just eliminate a large swathe of voters in one fell swoop, which was not what I imagined this organization being. I thought it was going to be a case-by-case basis of elimination, and I must say if it truly is the former, I very much regret my initial support of this board.

Don't worry, voters will be examined case by case. Setting some guidelines won't hurt this principle.

[Obnoxiously Slutty Girly Girl]

It's going to be like Sulla's proscriptions....

[Barnes]

Alright, I'm fully available for work now.

[Marokai Backbeat]

My first vision of our operations would be as follows:

- The guidelines will lay out general activity requirements that members have to meet to maintain their registration.
- On the 1st of every month, a list of voters not meeting those requirements shall be compiled and made publically available.
- Members of the public/voters themselves shall then be able to make arguments to save voters from the chop.
- The HAEV shall then vote on amendments to the list (i.e. to remove people from the list)
- The HAEV shall then vote on the final list after amendment as a whole.

This setup has the following benefits
- It maintains a level of objectivity from the general activity requirements
- It allows some discretion because the committee can remove people from the delete list
- It allows a bar against partisan manoeuvres - I will personally block the entire list if members try to amend the lists in a partisan way.

Forgive the confusion, but from the way it sounds, this would set up the process to just eliminate a large swathe of voters in one fell swoop, which was not what I imagined this organization being. I thought it was going to be a case-by-case basis of elimination, and I must say if it truly is the former, I very much regret my initial support of this board.

Don't worry, voters will be examined case by case. Setting some guidelines won't hurt this principle.

I just hope you evaluate and eliminate people one-by-one. I think I speak on behalf of all the Justices when I say we don't really want to deal with a dozen appeals at once.

[Sam Spade]

fwiw, I don't mind a dozen appeals at once, especially if on similar grounds.  Allows one to cover multiple cases in one opinion like the real Court.

[bullmoose88]

fwiw, I don't mind a dozen appeals at once, especially if on similar grounds.  Allows one to cover multiple cases in one opinion like the real Court.

Of course trying to get everyone to fit neatly together in a nice class of appellants is tricky.  But you could do it.

[Peter]

If we lack a serious measurable yardstick against which to measure any potential voter to be deleted, then I strongly fear that we will very quickly run up against an equal protection violation.

Say we remove one voter, call him Alex, on the basis of our "case-by-case" review on the basis of lack of recent activity because he only posted 3 times in the last 2 months on the Atlasia boards. Then a while down the line, we remove another voter, call him Bob, on the basis of lack of activity because he only posted 2 times in the last month. It later comes to light (because nobody had checked) that actually Bob posted 20 times in the two months before his removal. Also, Charlie, another voter was considered by the committee but after another poster pointed out 15 posts in the last two months, we declined to delete.

That seqnce of deletions could easily occur, especially if the events of Alex, Bob and Charlie are separated by a few months, because with the volume of voters passing over our desks, we'll have so many that if considered case-by-case, some will be approved without the full consideration that other cases would end up receiving because of outside interests intervening to protect their voters. Also, I've watched more elections pass by in Atlasia than most here, and I'll tell you right now that it is very difficult to remember a precedent from one election to another, especially when they end up being set somewhat unwittingly.

In my opinion, Bob would have a very good case to sue for an equal protection violation because different standards were applied to different voters without any official change in the Law.

A clear set of guidelines that each considered voter is measured against, (or preferably the whole roll is measured against every [insert preferred length of time]) means that no deleted voter could claim a lack of equal protection.

[Meeker]

As I've mentioned elsewhere, I'm on vacation and thus may not be able to give this my full attention until the New Year. In other words don't think I'm intentionally neglecting my job

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

The D-SoFA makes himself open for use of the committee.

If you need any research on postcounts needed, I can help.

[Barnes]

The D-SoFA makes himself open for use of the committee.

If you need any research on postcounts needed, I can help.

We thank you for your generosity.

[Peter]

Offline from tomorrow morning until Saturday 2 January at earliest.

[Barnes]

Offline from tomorrow morning until Saturday 2 January at earliest.

I think we can all be more available after New Years.  

[bgwah]

If this is actually an office, shouldn't you guys swear in first?

[Barnes]

If this is actually an office, shouldn't you guys swear in first?

We need to. I'll do that today, since I've been a little busy.

I guess my office title is "Member of the High Authority for Ethics in Voting".

[Vepres]

My first vision of our operations would be as follows:

- The guidelines will lay out general activity requirements that members have to meet to maintain their registration.
- On the 1st of every month, a list of voters not meeting those requirements shall be compiled and made publically available.
- Members of the public/voters themselves shall then be able to make arguments to save voters from the chop.
- The HAEV shall then vote on amendments to the list (i.e. to remove people from the list)
- The HAEV shall then vote on the final list after amendment as a whole.

This setup has the following benefits
- It maintains a level of objectivity from the general activity requirements
- It allows some discretion because the committee can remove people from the delete list
- It allows a bar against partisan manoeuvres - I will personally block the entire list if members try to amend the lists in a partisan way.

Forgive the confusion, but from the way it sounds, this would set up the process to just eliminate a large swathe of voters in one fell swoop, which was not what I imagined this organization being. I thought it was going to be a case-by-case basis of elimination, and I must say if it truly is the former, I very much regret my initial support of this board.

I suspect these guide lines will be used to determine whom they will look at and then they'll probably make many exceptions on a case-by-case basis.