Do you accept this new method of Censuses? ---OFFICIAL---

[jdd2007]

The Question: would you agree to having sign-ups that replace current censuses and the lifetime signups, described in this thread

Options:

Yes, signups every month
Yes, signups every other month
Yes, signups every [insert your idea here]
No, keep the current system
No, I propose a different system
Abstain/Banana/Other

[UnOrthOdOx]

Bleh, do what you will, I will likely abstain from any census lest they make it manditory to vote. And then, with my present problems in that area, I may as well abstain from those as well.

[jdd2007]

it would not be very often, OnOrthO...it is not a census, really, but a signup for the next one or two terms...

[GodKing]

I assume that the single option with the most votes wins.

[disorganizer]

I abstained just to view the result ;-)

my 2c:
you should combine election restrictions with the re-signup. only persons who re-signed up until 1 week before the elections will be able to vote in them.

[civman2000]

No. It's not clear exactly how significant the results of the signups will be, but since there is a chance that people who don't sign up monthly will not be considered citizens, I vote no.

[jdd2007]

we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up. it would be flexible.

Note: this is not an amendment

[civman2000]

we could keep our memberlist and make everyone on it citizens, but to vote you have to sign up

This violates clause 2 of the bill of rights, which will be added to the constitution when the poll closes tomorrow. This cannot be done without having it be an amendment

[Kuciwalker]

*sigh*

manually add +1 to option 1

[wervdon]

I voted against it. I dislike any system which will present us with persistant manditory "domestic nag" to stay involved. One sign up is plenty to vote. Being reasonably active is enough to run for an office. Besides, as it was pointed out this would violate the bill of rights, and even if it didn't, it'd need to be an ammendment to alter the voting requirements in my opinion at least.

To sum up, Id rather not have to remember repetitive redundant sign up processes, and my guess is at least a few people would end up getting excluded by it because of their sporadic real life schedules or their own forgettfulness.

[Jon Shafer]

Markos is already establishing a system for us to be securly logged in as members, which will go for polls especially.

[notyoueither]

I'm sorry I missed your original thread jdd. Too much going on...

An alternative to the permanent list may be a good idea, however drawing the line at one month might not be the best proposal.

If the list gets tied to the ability to vote in the Demo forum, then it is critically important that this procedure be done 'properly'. Maybe we should wait to see what Markos can do before we change anything else.

What we would need is a 'yes, it's done based on the first post in Gramphos' thread' or a 'no it can't be done'. Then we can proceed knowing the stakes involved.

BTW. Has anybody seen Gramphos lately? Not a big deal I suppose. The court could always ask Ming or Mark by PM to edit the 'important list' immediately prior to an election. One of them is always around.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Abstain as an attempt to further convince all that some of us are sick of polls on how to choose those who can poll (or whatever ).

[civman2000]

I'm going to take this to court as soon as i can...

[Timeline]

Abstain