Delegate Election Reform

[Southern Bellz]

This is something both Carta and Hile have brought up, and I agree. Our current delegate election system is UNFAIR for carta to run against Hile in any reasonable fashion, and it is no fault of Hile.However, I do not like the idea of our voting system moving only to a forum vote and abandoning the idea that part of our government has a basis in the game of nationstates. So here is my plan.1) To start there is a forum vote for all of the candidates. To narrow the field down to two candidates. 2A) If the current delegate is one of the two selected, a forum vote decides who the next legally elected delegate of TSP is.2B) If both the candidates are not the current delegate, an in-game system is used. Both candidates must start below or at the cap. If the candidate is in a position where they were allowed to go above the cap, it is their duty to get below the cap by starting over or getting people to unendorse them. If a candidate breaks the cap before the start date, then they have 24 hours to comply with the cap or they are disqualified.Once the start date occurs the sitting delegate can no longer endoswap and the first candidate to over take them is the new delegate of TSP. This is the basic premise of my idea, and I think it makes elections fair and does not throw away the TSP spirit that our government has an in game mechanic tied to it.

[Hileville]

I we would need to do with this is just make a minor adjustment to the current Delegate law. I would support this.

[Belschaft]

I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

[Rebel-topia]

I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...

[Southern Bellz]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>Because by the time the person became delegate half their term would be over and the vice delegate position becomes a nightmare from a security perspective.

[Belschaft]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="All the Kings Men of Rebel-topia"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>Because by the time the person became delegate half their term would be over and the vice delegate position becomes a nightmare from a security perspective.
</blockquote>That's a bit of an exaggeration. Based on experience I'd estimate it would take about ten days max for one of the candidates to overtake the VD.

[LadyRebels]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Southern Bellz"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="All the Kings Men of Rebel-topia"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>Because by the time the person became delegate half their term would be over and the vice delegate position becomes a nightmare from a security perspective.
</blockquote>That's a bit of an exaggeration. Based on experience I'd estimate it would take about ten days max for one of the candidates to overtake the VD.
</blockquote>and I would say that, from a security perspective, those 10 days would be nightmare for those of us that have lived through XYZ. It is not so much catching up with the Vice but the thought that someone could swoop in and in a matter of hours have all the WA nations Endo'ed, most of the WA's in TSP are not part of these forums so they would not know what is 'going' on and they would return the endo with no issue at all, then not check in for a couple of weeks and miss the real TG sent by the Candidates of the Delegacy..just a few thoughts, if they are not clear enough certainly let me know so that I can clarify them for you.

[Hileville]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>The problem is that requires an active VD which we really don't have at the moment. Actually I take that back Carta was supposed to be my active VD.

[Belschaft]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="All the Kings Men of Rebel-topia"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>The problem is that requires an active VD which we really don't have at the moment. Actually I take that back Carta was supposed to be my active VD.
</blockquote>The VD's are just influence pools that a couper can't ban, that we can tart up in such circumstances

[LadyRebels]

<blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Hileville"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="All the Kings Men of Rebel-topia"><blockquote class='ipsBlockquote' data-author="Belschaft">I don't like this amendment, as it means losing the in game element in a potentially huge number of cases. An alternative I've seen suggested, where both candidates leave the region for an update and the delegacy is handed of to a VD would be much more preferable to me.

I think this sounds better... I cant see why you couldnt start from "scratch"... the VD could hold til one of the two could make it past the cap...
</blockquote>The problem is that requires an active VD which we really don't have at the moment. Actually I take that back Carta was supposed to be my active VD.
</blockquote>The VD's are just influence pools that a couper can't ban, that we can tart up in such circumstances
</blockquote>Influence is good and all but when it comes to checking in how long do we have before total destruction is done to the people that we hold in Office?

Say, and as has been proven, someone had the patience, the time, and the dream to tear this all down all they have to do is get enough influence on a puppet nation in TSP, wait however long is needed then bam....WA, Endo Swap, Take Delegacy right out from under everyone's nose....start banning.

Inactive VD means that for those few days that there is not a way to check in then we take the very large chance of loosing everything that has been worked for and something newer, uglier and harsher comes into being.

Stop and think about that for a moment.

[HEM]

What if we ran it like this:Held a vote for all candidates on the forum. If there is a MAJORITY for any candidate on the forum, that candidate is the winner -- hands down.But if there is a plurality result, we then take the top two to the game site to allow all WAs to have the final say.

[LadyRebels]

Now that is something that could work..go figure

[Belschaft]

Yeah, that looks like a <em class='bbc'>very</em> good idea.

[Antariel]

We should not be excluding the in-game players; to do so smacks of tyranny, and I fully oppose any change which will allow the forum 'Old Boys Club' to ignore the masses. Leaving a VD in charge for a week would not be an issue as they could be tarted up to stop any outside attacker as long as some of th region were paying attention - we do have an MoS for a reason.Seriously, we can't just ignore the in-game side of things, or we sacrifice all legitimacy.

[Belschaft]

Ant, you missed a long discussion on IRC over this. That issue was talked about a lot, and everyone was in broad agreement with it, but the current system <em class='bbc'>is</em> flawed; incumbents have a massive advantage.

[Antariel]

... I don't care; you can't exclude the forum majority from any solution; my rejoin suggestion is much fairer

[Antariel]

Otherwise we are no longer a government of the in-game, we are an off-site oligarchical parasite, something I cannot accept.

[Belschaft]

Ant, I made the exact same arguments as you did in the IRC chat, but the reality is that the current system is both flawed and unfair.

[Antariel]

And ignoring the vast majority of TSP is fairer? Rubbish.Again; a VD, with an active cadre of forumites, can keep the region secure while both candidates leave and rejoin. Endos reset, they race to beat the VD. Simple. Effective. And the VD can be tarted in an emergency, while our scanner checks nobody reaches too many to threaten the VD. All you need is to contact the VD in advance and secure a date for the beginning of the run they are relatively free.Guys, you cannot exclude the forum majority here - it's exactly what Sedge and Hax were able to use to get so much support over the last year. Do NOT throw this all away.

[Hileville]

I am against having both parties leave the region for an update. The sitting Delegate has done a lot and I mean a lot of work to keep endorsements up to ignore that fact would be crazy. If that was the system we used we would never see an incumbent run for reelection.

[HEM]

Ant, my solution allows for the game to chose the Delegate when we at the forum don't have a clear majority.



I hear and understand your points. But there are a few things we must consider besides just how "fair" the elections are.



- The onsite population is not going to be 1/10th as informed as the forum population. It isn't going to be about issues, it's going to be about endorsement swapping. Which I am fine with, as long as there has been a strong legitimate debate beforehand (in the forum election). If we at the forum have a clear majority on who we want, then that is <em class='bbc'>probably</em> how the whole region would go if we wanted all WAs to decide the race.



- The forum is not an oligarchy unless we make it one. Just like in the United States, you have to register to vote. You have to go to the BMV/DMV and fill out that paperwork. If you don't do that, you can't complain about being disenfranchised. Same with the forum and nations. Anyone can join the forum, and you get citizenship pretty close to instantly. It is an easier process than in the RL United States even.



- For those who argue that it's too hard for a challenger, there I disagree. I disagree, because I very nearly almost won coming from zero endorsements against Southern Bellz, and that experience is what prompts me to support a model that allows this forum to have the first say, and then allow Nationstates.net to figure it out if we can't.

[LadyRebels]

Ant, my solution allows for the game to chose the Delegate when we at the forum don't have a clear majority.



I hear and understand your points. But there are a few things we must consider besides just how "fair" the elections are.



- The onsite population is not going to be 1/10th as informed as the forum population. It isn't going to be about issues, it's going to be about endorsement swapping. Which I am fine with, as long as there has been a strong legitimate debate beforehand (in the forum election). If we at the forum have a clear majority on who we want, then that is <em class='bbc'>probably</em> how the whole region would go if we wanted all WAs to decide the race.



- The forum is not an oligarchy unless we make it one. Just like in the United States, you have to register to vote. You have to go to the BMV/DMV and fill out that paperwork. If you don't do that, you can't complain about being disenfranchised. Same with the forum and nations. Anyone can join the forum, and you get citizenship pretty close to instantly. It is an easier process than in the RL United States even.



- For those who argue that it's too hard for a challenger, there I disagree. I disagree, because I very nearly almost won coming from zero endorsements against Southern Bellz, and that experience is what prompts me to support a model that allows this forum to have the first say, and then allow Nationstates.net to figure it out if we can't.

This is a more fair way to do it, what is so hard to see about that? Honestly you are asking to take to much of a risk with the Security of TSP for my liking.



Call me what you will I don't really give to shakes of anyone's tail about that but don't you dare use that "Old Boys Club" argument when from what I have seen the "OBC" has been more than willing to step aside and let TSP guides itself with new members and newer voices being heard.



I don't see any voice being put on ignore or silenced by their messages being hidden or deleted by anyone on the Admin team. Until you can show just cause and fear for your calling out of a separation of this great region you have no right to be putting that argument into any sort of play.



Thank you and have a wonderful day.



EDIT: and yes this was and is directed to Ant, just wanted to make that clear.

[Southern Bellz]

Hem what script did you use when you challenged me?

[Southern Bellz]

I have read all of these proposals, and I stand by what I typed in the OP.The current system is broken. In most elections the emcumbant has an advantage from being more know than the challenger. In our system the encumbant is entrenched by the system. Its like stating the election process where you can only mail in your votes for one candidate before the election period begins so they start the election period with 50% more votes than you.The other solutions all have the same drawbacks or other fatal drawbacks that make them unworkable. I believe in gameplay elections as well, but only when both candidates start on the same footing. My solution allows gameplay elections when they result in fair elections, and defer to the forum elections when they are the only means the elections can be fair. (without having people going into exile to become delegate)If you want to call this proposal on par with what sedge and hax did, you need to take a longer look at what sedge and hax did.

[Eluvatar]

What if we held an open vote on the RMB, with a publicly published vote-counter that checked TSP WA status or somesuch?