[Sanctaria]

On 1.3, I would suggest noting that the proxy must be an IDUSA member

Sure.

On 1.8, I would suggest extending the line of succession- Delegate to Vice-Delegate to Foreign Minister

I don't want to go into that much specification for what would, essentially be, only a 2-3 week period. Most cabinet officials are just behind the Delegate and Vice Delegate in terms of endorsements, so by not specifying which Cabinet member specifically holds it, it means there doesn't have to be an unnecessary endo-tarting campaign.

Leaving it as "another Cabinet officer" also means that we can later on pass a Line of Succession Bill, or its equivalent, without having to amend this piece of legislation.

I would suggest increasing the period of nomination to 2 weeks

2 weeks is far, far too long. Way too long. No other region has a period of time quite like that, and since we are a small region, we definitely don't.

If clause 2.4 is in place, how would voting take place? Are you advocating that voting take place on the offsite forum only? I personally feel that elections should continue to take place on the IDU regional page via a poll, rather than on the forum, because it is easier to keep track of who has voted, as well as easier to vote in the first place. I do support clause 2.6, however.

So there's a few things here.

Firstly, the Delegate has to be elected by IDUSA members as per the Charter. There is no mask for IDUSA members on the gameside, while there is one set up here on the forum.

Secondly, because it has to be elected by IDUSA, that would suggest using the IDUSA forum, not the gameside poll.

Thirdly, polls are unreliable because we, as a region, can't prevent multi-ing etc on the gameside (the Mods may not catch everyone in time, even if they were looking, which they may not be necessarily), further WAs can move in and abuse the gameside polling options.

In terms of the forum, polling is anonymous, which means that we can't keep track of who voted for what if it's done only by poll, again meaning we can't prevent abuse of the system. By making everyone who is voting cast their vote in public, on the forum, we can verify easily enough.

Finally, traditionally elections were done here on the forum, not on the gameside. So in fact, we would be reverting to the original method.

I think that this Bill needs a section on how transitions would work, so that we can avoid the confusion that happened in the last election. Sciongrad resigned from the WA and then rejoined, resetting his endorsement count to 0. I was fourth for number of endorsements, behind Sciongrad, Bears Armed Mission, and Grosseschnauzer. Sciongrad and I both unendorsed BAM and Grosseschnauzer without notifying them beforehand, resulting in Grosseschnauzer becoming upset that he had not been notified before he was unendorsed. Grosseschnauzer then unendorsed me, allowing Comhar to become the delegate for several hours 11 days later before order was reestablished.

I can't regulate transitions, since that's up to behaviour on the gameside. Some people gameside aren't involved on the forums, so I can't regulate their behaviour. Look at all the WA people who endorsed you recently, have they looked at this? Will they? Unlikely.

There are always problems with transitions, it's just part and parcel of the game mechanics.