What should happen in the event of an SC member resigning early?

[KiaraGrouwstra]

Question

The SC is currently elected by proportional representation, which seeks to reflect the preferences of its voters.
However, over this initial SC term we have seen multiple early resignations, potentially making what remains of the SC less representative of its voter base, if not also affecting decision-making capabilities.

Now, there may be alternate ways to deal with scenarios involving early retirement, including going over the original votes to recalculate what alternate candidate might best represent this part of the electorate, or (eventually) even calling new elections.

As a candidate to the body in charge of our constitution, how would you ideally see these cases handled?

Candidates I'd like to get an answer from

No response

[crertel]

If we do an automatic no-confidence vote or similar, it incentivizes campaigning to pressure people to resign if some faction feels things aren't going well. Schemes whereby the departing member may nominate a successor to carry out their term--presumably inheriting term limits and whatnot as well--are better but suffer from similar incentive problems.

So, instead, let's make it unpalatable to quit for everyone involved: each departed member's vote should default to the board for bulk assignment as they see fit.

---

Vote Boring Nix.

[pluiedev]

DISCLAIMER: I have no background in political science and I don't know if this is a sound system. I am welcome to all sorts of feedback (including ones that simply say this is a very bad idea). Regardless, this is what I have at the moment.

I've been thinking about this lately and I think one solution would be to make the Election Committee keep a list of 2–3 runner-up candidates who nearly made into the top 7. They would serve as the backup crew should one of the SC members step down due to personal reasons. Crucially to avoid any tactical resignation maneuvers, neither the incumbent SC nor the backup candidates themselves know this status — instead in case of a resignation, the EC that elected the incumbent SC should be consulted and allowed to appoint the first person remaining in the backup crew.

For example, if one person had to resign from the SC, the 8th place candidate automatically succeeds them. If a second person resigns, then the 9th place succeeds them. If a third person resigns, then the 10th. I think if yet a fourth person resigns, you already lost half of the original SC and at that point something is very wrong, and we should call for a full re-election.

For me, this solution both honors the electorate's wishes and also keeps the continuity of the SC for the most part if only 1–2 members resign. It would be very problematic if more than 2 members resign, but if we are put into that place to begin with then something is again very wrong.

[niklaskorz]

I do not think moving the next best candidates of the previous election into the SC automatically to be a good idea. I believe Special Elections to be adequate enough to cover this situation already, and they should be made use of if the next regular election is too far in the future. This would be made easier by the constitutional amendment proposed in NixOS/org#181.

[djacu]

Hold a special election

[tomberek]

Being elected to the SC is a duty. It is a promise to fulfill the term you have been voted for. Resigning should be possible, because there are extraneous circumstances. In that situation the constitution describes a special election.

There has been discussion regarding fixing the 6-person deadlock situation. There are multiple proposals to fix this and I'm not yet sure which is the best. Until we have a fix, I will work with the rest of the SC and attempt to reach majority votes by finding areas of agreement.

[pinpox]

I think the procedure for this case is already answered in the constitution

[JulienMalka]

I think the best democratic outcome to a SC member resigning early is to organize special elections. The fact this was not done for the resignation in the current mandate probably goes to show that the constitution must be more constraining on that aspect.

[rhendric]

I think holding a special election is the best answer we have right now, despite its potential for distorting proportionality for the remainder of the term. (Try not to resign early without a full re-election if you think you hold more minority views, I guess?)

In the long run... voting theory is hard. I would certainly entertain alternate proposals for how to deal with such circumstances.

I recognize the expertise of the original NCA members on this class of questions, and if the SC were to start working on a constitutional amendment targeting their case I would definitely seek their input, though in this case probably not defer to it exclusively — I'd want to find and triangulate with some outside experts too.

[nyabinary]

I agree with the recent decision by the SC to have an Election Committee on standby throughout the year, as this ensures swift and efficient reelections when vacancies occur. I also believe there should be clearly defined deadlines for these reelections, with a requirement that they happen within that timeframe. This would prevent situations where either the SC or EC delays the process by continuously pushing back the election date, ensuring accountability and consistent community representation.

[getchoo]

I would like to always hold special elections - ideally as required through an amendment to our constitution