I've decided to write my views on the election's status here in my blog, because I feel the forum post on the portal site is more about arguing, personal feelings and trying to cast blame rather than actually looking at the issues and finding a solution.
Today is 11/12/2011 which is the day CDS citizens are supposed to be heading to the polls to cast their votes for the new election. Democracy in action, right...however it seems this is not going to happen as smoothly as we would have all hoped. It's been brought to our attention on 11/11/2011 (one day before we were supposed to start casting votes) that there is a hiccup in the election process. This information was not given by a member of the SC (Scientific Counsel), but rather it was delivered by a member of the Executive branch and a candidate for this current election itself. While I am thankful that we received a notice about the election from someone that had the privilege of reading the 28 email exchanges and knew fully what was happening I am extremely livid that the SC didn't speak up sooner. Currently we still have no update on how this situation is going to be officially handled.
So what was the problem?? New Citizens and Election qualifications
Each citizen is required to be a citizen of CDS for 28 days prior to any election. It's in our constitution, and we can read it here. There was a mistype on the forums where it was assumed that Nov 3rd was the actual cut off date. Due to this mistype and many believing this information was correct we allowed new citizens to believe they would be able to participate in our democratic voting process. The Executive branch even offered reduced parcels as an incentive to increase citizenship.
Our new Citizens are an added value to CDS. They have an interest in democracy and have shown an interest in running for office, participating in events, meetings and CDS' future as well. I don't think they should be penalized for our mistake. (Our meaning the CDS community) This election is causing a rift between our community instead of becoming something that we all work together on.
To me pointing fingers at anyone that was involved in the first 28 email exchange is wrong. The people in these email were only acting out in CDS best interest. This isn't what we should be concerned with rather we should be asking , "Why the SC didn't give more information and guidance on the Election? Why CDS after being a community for over 7 years and having 2 elections each year for a total of 14 elections or more are we having questions about how our election is processed? The SC has failed us on this election. To me it's tainted.
The SC didn't provided a first tread on the election
The SC didn't provide an outline to the election process
The SC didn't inform all candidates there was a problem with the election.
The SC lost note cards on candidates announcing their intention to run
The SC didn't provide debate information or times
This entire election has been poorly handled from the beginning.
This isn't the first time something has gone a miss during a CDS election, during another election in 2008 where there was a question on tabulating votes. As others have pointed out this isn't the first time the SC has goofed up, but hopefully we can make it the last.