Open Other Senate Election Improvements for next term

[civic]

Proposal

I think there can be some improvements for the future:
1.
I think it's kind of unfair if someones name always appears at the top of a vote selection in the UI. They are likely going to obtain a lot of default votes from people just voting for a badge or for the sake of voting.
I think when you select a category then the order of the names in the list should be randomised to help prevent unsolicitated / default votes. There is no harm in implementing this.
2.
I think you should be unable to vote unless you have read everyones stances and why they are running via the terminal.
Sure, this can be opened and closed for each person, but it at least encourages people to read in the first place and get a better understanding on who they are voting for and not just the default top position - this kind of links to the first point.
If it's too hard to code / determine everyones positions being read first then perhaps at least opening the terminal once can flag you to then be eligible to vote.
3.
Vetting people at the end of the election period isn't good. It's unclear to the community. There should be vetting done prior to the election period. This makes it fairer, clearer and easier for everyone.
People should stand for election, then the vetting happens, and then they are approved or denied.

Justification

I think there are improvements which can be made to the voting system to make a smoother and fairer implemenation for everyone.
There is some upset with this term and thus a voice is being put forward. I belive the points are valid and help to create a fair and unbiased system.

Motivation

There appears to be a few issues with this term, from people being excluded due to not fitting the criteria to vote, to inactive votes not counting (despite full guilds logging in just to vote which counted for some people but not for others, it appears) which is not written in the guidelines for the voting period to even null a candidate.

Hi,

I don't want this to be a post about any drama so let's not discuss any outcomes here, let's keep it on topic and structured.

 

[Aconite]

Thanks for your feedback! We’ll be sharing several changes for the upcoming term when we announce the winners of this term in the next few days.

I’ll implement #1.

As for 2, I’m not sure it’s necessary. Players will vote how they like and either read or not. Forcing them into clicking through a bunch of UI listings seems likely to only be a frustrating experience. Ultimately, if the player doesn’t want to read and wants to make an uninformed vote, that’s their prerogative.

We already determine initial eligibility to run when candidates self-nominate.

 

[RoHRemis]

Thanks for your feedback! We’ll be sharing several changes for the upcoming term when we announce the winners of this term in the next few days.

I’ll implement #1.

As for 2, I’m not sure it’s necessary. Players will vote how they like and either read or not. Forcing them into clicking through a bunch of UI listings seems likely to only be a frustrating experience. Ultimately, if the player doesn’t want to read and wants to make an uninformed vote, that’s their prerogative.

We already determine initial eligibility to run when candidates self-nominate.

To this point, I feel like unnecessary inconvenience would mostly discourage people from voting vs making them more informed.

 

[RoHRemis]

Vetting people at the end of the election period isn't good. It's unclear to the community. There should be vetting done prior to the election period. This makes it fairer, clearer and easier for everyone.
People should stand for election, then the vetting happens, and then they are approved or denied.

Is this in reference to the community programs candidate?