CZ Talk:Referenda (Citizen-Initiated)

I have started this page, but need some help concerning the best way to make it work. Feel free to move this page if it can be titled or placed better. Feel free to change any of the text at any time. This is a Citizen page and should remain open for anyone to edit. D. Matt Innis 15:10, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Text for proposal pages

I have included the following text on the proposal page for the referendum I am seeking support for. There are no rules about any of this, but I suggest that only Election Committee members should modify it (and they are welcome to do so):

Only the proposer of the referendum and Election Committee members may modify this page. Substantive modifications by the proposer after the referendum has been formally proposed at Referenda (Citizen-Initiated) will invalidate the signatures of any current supporters, and require them to sign again. Comments should be placed on the Talk page.

Under Article 37, section 2 of the Citizendium Charter, any Citizen in good standing may propose or support a referendum on the articles of the Charter or other matters. The number of Citizens required for a referendum vote to be held is equal to 20% of the valid votes in the previous round of elections. For December 2011, 3 Citizens must propose and support a referendum for its contents to be put to a community vote.

This page contains a proposed referendum question, the existing Charter article(s) or rule(s) which the proposer and any supporters of the referendum wish to change, and the proposed new text. A further section elaborates on the proposal.

Text ends. John Stephenson 11:03, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Election for unopposed candidates

I'm happy to support this referendum, but I do have concerns about the system. It has been pointed out that under our current rules, or these ones, a group of individuals could join CZ with the intention only of electing each other to various official rules and "taking over". Our user base is so small that a handful of individuals could outvote it if working together, so I think a major revision of what is meant by "good standing" is needed, as well as a way to recall ineffective officials, especially considering how much time has been allocated in the past by the councils wishing to choose their membership. David Finn 09:26, 6 December 2011 (UTC)