Implementation of e-voting

% Green:
81.70
% Yellow:
14.00
% Red:
4.30
Voting Detail:
Plenary
% Ratified:
0.00

Party Commentary

Preamble

WHEREAS, Article 10.1.3 of the 2010 Constitution stipulates a 120-day rule for a ratification vote on changes to the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, Article 10.1.4.2 of the 2010 Constitution stipulates a 120-day rule for a ratification vote on changes specifically to article 10, and

WHEREAS, the party was unable to complete the ratification process within this stipulated time because of extenuating circumstances; and

WHEREAS, unless this resolution be adopted, the ratification ballot is un-constitutional and changes to the Constitution introduced at BGM12 are therefore null and void,

Operative

BE IT RESOLVED that a committee will be struck to determine the most cost-effective, technically feasible, and secure method of allowing voters to cast e-votes during BGMs and EDA processes, with the goal of improving participation in and quality of decision-making.

Sponsors:
Danny Polifroni, Francoise Aubin, Paul Estrin, Kate Storey, Ard Van Leeuwen, Mark McKenzie, Stephen Klietsch, Drew Fenwick, Douglas Woodard, Joe Foster Joe Foster, Rich Tyssen, Judy Smith, Stacey Leadbetter, Wesley Stevens, Doug Storey Storey, Burt Folkins, Frances Coates, Robert Fishlock, Alex Hill, Scott McNaughton

Background

The GPC Constitution is our governing law. Unless we conform to its provisions we can hardly defend the rule of law in other situations.

Articles 10.1.3 and 10.1.4.2 of the 2010 Constitution stipulated that constitutional resolutions need to be approved in a ratification vote within 120 days of the BGM. The BGM in Sidney ended on August 19th, 2012, and the ratification vote concluded on March 1st, 2013, a period of 193 days.

Unless we waive those provisions, all constitutional motions from BGM12 have to be rejected.

This resolution is presented as a separate resolution since the previous resolution is in conflict with this one: either can be approved without the other. This resolution addresses the issue of process with respect to BGM12 Constitutional resolutions; the previous resolution addresses BGM12 Policy resolutions. Both resolutions may be considered housekeeping, but critical to our process.

Code

G14-D03

Proposal Type

Directive

Submitter Name

Colin Griffiths

Party Commentary

Preamble

WHEREAS, Article 10.1.3 of the 2010 Constitution stipulates a 120-day rule for a ratification vote on changes to the Constitution, and

WHEREAS, Article 10.1.4.2 of the 2010 Constitution stipulates a 120-day rule for a ratification vote on changes specifically to article 10, and

WHEREAS, the party was unable to complete the ratification process within this stipulated time because of extenuating circumstances; and

WHEREAS, unless this resolution be adopted, the ratification ballot is un-constitutional and changes to the Constitution introduced at BGM12 are therefore null and void,

Operative

BE IT RESOLVED that a committee will be struck to determine the most cost-effective, technically feasible, and secure method of allowing voters to cast e-votes during BGMs and EDA processes, with the goal of improving participation in and quality of decision-making.

Sponsors

Danny Polifroni, Francoise Aubin, Paul Estrin, Kate Storey, Ard Van Leeuwen, Mark McKenzie, Stephen Klietsch, Drew Fenwick, Douglas Woodard, Joe Foster Joe Foster, Rich Tyssen, Judy Smith, Stacey Leadbetter, Wesley Stevens, Doug Storey Storey, Burt Folkins, Frances Coates, Robert Fishlock, Alex Hill, Scott McNaughton

Background

The GPC Constitution is our governing law. Unless we conform to its provisions we can hardly defend the rule of law in other situations.

Articles 10.1.3 and 10.1.4.2 of the 2010 Constitution stipulated that constitutional resolutions need to be approved in a ratification vote within 120 days of the BGM. The BGM in Sidney ended on August 19th, 2012, and the ratification vote concluded on March 1st, 2013, a period of 193 days.

Unless we waive those provisions, all constitutional motions from BGM12 have to be rejected.

This resolution is presented as a separate resolution since the previous resolution is in conflict with this one: either can be approved without the other. This resolution addresses the issue of process with respect to BGM12 Constitutional resolutions; the previous resolution addresses BGM12 Policy resolutions. Both resolutions may be considered housekeeping, but critical to our process.