General Election Law Review

[Hileville]

I had been thinking about our election laws and overall how we conduct elections.  I know this is the third thread that is being opened on elections but I would like to keep this to the actual way someone is elected.  In one of the other threads Uni had said we are using an archaic method of first past the post wins.  I believe he is correct.  I would like to examine this and get input on the way our current system is in regards to winning an election and the time period it actually begins.

 

A couple of questions to ponder:

Do we like the current plurality method used for non-Delegate elections?

What other methods could we use for determining a winner?

Should the election period start sooner than it currently does? (i.e. Start 8 days before the first day of the given term.  So in December the election would have began on or about November 23)

<b>Are special elections too long or not long enough</b>?

Are regular elections too long or not long enough?

[Unibot]

I would like to see preferential voting across the board. We're not using polls anymore so we can move away from first-past-the-post. In my experience, preferential voting promotes better candidates and does reflect the overall, collective voice of the region better than first-past-the-post (which as a democratic model encourages divisive politics -- divide and conquering the pluralities). 

 

Admittedly, I don't understand the different types of preferential voting quite well -- Glen-Rhodes and Eluvatar, however, are quite knowledgeable in those regards and would be a good resource for the region in regards to how to construct a fair, preferential voting system. 

 

I also think special elections should work as real elections -- in the sense that if we elect SB as MoA in a special election, a month before the next scheduled election, SB should not face re-election in a month. The reasoning here is giving candidates a fair span of time to prove themselves and reducing the number of elections.

[Lord Ravenclaw]

Get rid of elections and hold a Hunger Games.

 

Whoever wins can hold the office.

 

totally serious.... not

[Southern Bellz]

I volunteer as tribute.


Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Kris Kringle]

I apply for the job of Head Gamemaker.

[Farengeto]

In all seriousness, I have to agree with Unibot about considering preferential voting. I got a general understanding of it, and I think it could be doable.


For those unfamiliar, the basic concept is ranking the candidates you want on the ballot instead of simply picking one. After tallying the votes, the bottom candidate is eliminated and those votes are switched to their second choice, and so on until only one candidate remains.

[Escade]

Thank you, Farengeto for explaining preferential voting. I agree it does seem like an interesting system to try out at least once.  I wonder how it would work for public thread posts?

 

I also think that election time could be extended (maybe by a week) because it gives more time for candidates as discussed in another thread.  I'd really like to have an official mass TG sent out a month before the elections period with detailed information on the upcoming election. Then I'd blast the RMB regularly with reminders.

[QuietDad]

I say shorten the actual vote time. Candidates have a week to campaign before the vote, Put your effort in BEFORE I vote, not after. If it was up to me, we should get in the charter that campaigning during a vote is not allowed. I still think a poll vote in a thread where only citizens can access the forum and the results hidden to the public until after the election solves a whole lot of our problems and requires the least amount of administration. I know Hileville has expressed  no more polls, but I don't know what the issues were and it might be a technical nightmare or something and would defer to issues, but I think it could work.

[Unibot]

I say shorten the actual vote time. Candidates have a week to campaign before the vote, Put your effort in BEFORE I vote, not after. If it was up to me, we should get in the charter that campaigning during a vote is not allowed. I still think a poll vote in a thread where only citizens can access the forum and the results hidden to the public until after the election solves a whole lot of our problems and requires the least amount of administration. I know Hileville has expressed  no more polls, but I don't know what the issues were and it might be a technical nightmare or something and would defer to issues, but I think it could work.

 

You're not representative of most TSP voters (who barely give time to lobbyists to contact before they vote -- they just show up out of the blue before voting). Certainly can't have a conversation - which is the best way to campaign.

[QuietDad]

Just stating my personal feelings/preferences, The eligible voter names are available and there are many ways to get in touch with them and there is the RMB. One of the "issues" NEW voters have is the fear of repercussions for voting for the wrong person more than voting there conscious. Getting hit during a vote by the entire cabinet asking (some politely, some asking "authoritatively) to change your vote because it helps the current "platform" can cause a vote to change. The issues are do we make the votes private and open up the question of  is the vote real, or do we open them up and encourage campaigning. By using the poll feature here masked to citizens, the vote is private and the counts are real and right in front of you AFTER you vote. The only administration I see is creating the poll and that's really not a big deal. I can understand that the forum admins might have some issue I am unaware of with IPBoard, but that has never been explained. 

Any of the methods being discussed have issues and everyone has different views on which is more important to them and personal feelings on this ARE NOT going to be "debated" into consensus. EVER. I say put up a vote with the choices of public/private/poll voting and see where t goes WITHOUT discussing campaigning. Vote number two after it's decided HOW we vote become Should campaigning stop after the vote starts. Yes or No? Questions answered, voting system defined and we're on our way. Otherwise we have another week of discussions with nobody changing their mind and voting as above anyway.

No one is an idiot if they don't agree. I'm not an idiot for thinking this way. Just expressing a view and will learn to live with whatever system gets put in place.

 

 <span style="font-size:14.666666984558105px;">You're not representative of most TSP voters (who barely give time to lobbyists to contact before they vote -- they just show up out of the blue before voting). Certainly can't have a conversation - which is the best way to campaign.</span>

It's not my job as a citizen to find candidates to campaign me. It's the candidate's responsibility to find me to campaign for my vote. If I have to do your work for you to hear you campaign, why would I think you'd be any more effective in office?

[tsunamy]

I say shorten the actual vote time. Candidates have a week to campaign before the vote, Put your effort in BEFORE I vote, not after. If it was up to me, we should get in the charter that campaigning during a vote is not allowed.

 

It used to be.

 

I must admit ignorance -- how long is the current vote time? I know we used to have it for a week ... but that was a long time ago.

[Farengeto]

Charter says 5 days for nominations, 3 days for voting.

[tsunamy]

Charter says 5 days for nominations, 3 days for voting.

 

Thanks Far. I seem to remember seven days being a bit much -- maybe someone who was around for the change can fill in the logic.

 

But, maybe we can split the difference and extend it to five days? I think three is a bit short.

[Farengeto]

If we're going to ban campaigning during voting then I disagree. 3 days for voting is already enough. I'd extend the nomination period so we can get more campaigning done during that phase.

[Unibot]

 

Just stating my personal feelings/preferences, The eligible voter names are available and there are many ways to get in touch with them and there is the RMB. One of the "issues" NEW voters have is the fear of repercussions for voting for the wrong person more than voting there conscious. Getting hit during a vote by the entire cabinet asking (some politely, some asking "authoritatively) to change your vote because it helps the current "platform" can cause a vote to change. The issues are do we make the votes private and open up the question of  is the vote real, or do we open them up and encourage campaigning. By using the poll feature here masked to citizens, the vote is private and the counts are real and right in front of you AFTER you vote. The only administration I see is creating the poll and that's really not a big deal. I can understand that the forum admins might have some issue I am unaware of with IPBoard, but that has never been explained. 

Any of the methods being discussed have issues and everyone has different views on which is more important to them and personal feelings on this ARE NOT going to be "debated" into consensus. EVER. I say put up a vote with the choices of public/private/poll voting and see where t goes WITHOUT discussing campaigning. Vote number two after it's decided HOW we vote become Should campaigning stop after the vote starts. Yes or No? Questions answered, voting system defined and we're on our way. Otherwise we have another week of discussions with nobody changing their mind and voting as above anyway.

No one is an idiot if they don't agree. I'm not an idiot for thinking this way. Just expressing a view and will learn to live with whatever system gets put in place.

 

 

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"> You're not representative of most TSP voters (who barely give time to lobbyists to contact before they vote -- they just show up out of the blue before voting). Certainly can't have a conversation - which is the best way to campaign.

It's not my job as a citizen to find candidates to campaign me. It's the candidate's responsibility to find me to campaign for my vote. If I have to do your work for you to hear you campaign, why would I think you'd be any more effective in office?
 


</blockquote>
 

These mythical "new" voters who are rolling up in a ball and crying because someone is sending them a campaign message could use a hypothetical sign-out sheet for campaigning. But to be honest, I think I've seen a few established players complaining about messaging, I have not heard any stories of anyone being intimidated and forced.

[Kris Kringle]

I strongly oppose banning campaigning at any time of the election period. This is a matter of our political culture, not something to be legislated on. I would regard such a ban as a violation of freedom of speech. We have the opt out proposal to address that issue.

[Farengeto]

I strongly oppose banning campaigning at any time of the election period. This is a matter of our political culture, not something to be legislated on. I would regard such a ban as a violation of freedom of speech. We have the opt out proposal to address that issue.

I share this opinion.

[HEM]

I strongly oppose banning campaigning at any time of the election period. This is a matter of our political culture, not something to be legislated on. I would regard such a ban as a violation of freedom of speech. We have the opt out proposal to address that issue.

 

Agreed. I also oppose lengthening the voting time. 3 days is already incredibly generous.

[QuietDad]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="QuietDad" data-cid="114449" data-time="1390029105">
<div>
 

Just stating my personal feelings/preferences, The eligible voter names are available and there are many ways to get in touch with them and there is the RMB. One of the "issues" NEW voters have is the fear of repercussions for voting for the wrong person more than voting there conscious. Getting hit during a vote by the entire cabinet asking (some politely, some asking "authoritatively) to change your vote because it helps the current "platform" can cause a vote to change. The issues are do we make the votes private and open up the question of  is the vote real, or do we open them up and encourage campaigning. By using the poll feature here masked to citizens, the vote is private and the counts are real and right in front of you AFTER you vote. The only administration I see is creating the poll and that's really not a big deal. I can understand that the forum admins might have some issue I am unaware of with IPBoard, but that has never been explained. 

Any of the methods being discussed have issues and everyone has different views on which is more important to them and personal feelings on this ARE NOT going to be "debated" into consensus. EVER. I say put up a vote with the choices of public/private/poll voting and see where t goes WITHOUT discussing campaigning. Vote number two after it's decided HOW we vote become Should campaigning stop after the vote starts. Yes or No? Questions answered, voting system defined and we're on our way. Otherwise we have another week of discussions with nobody changing their mind and voting as above anyway.

No one is an idiot if they don't agree. I'm not an idiot for thinking this way. Just expressing a view and will learn to live with whatever system gets put in place.

 

 

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote"> You're not representative of most TSP voters (who barely give time to lobbyists to contact before they vote -- they just show up out of the blue before voting). Certainly can't have a conversation - which is the best way to campaign.

It's not my job as a citizen to find candidates to campaign me. It's the candidate's responsibility to find me to campaign for my vote. If I have to do your work for you to hear you campaign, why would I think you'd be any more effective in office?
 


</blockquote>
 

These mythical "new" voters who are rolling up in a ball and crying because someone is sending them a campaign message could use a hypothetical sign-out sheet for campaigning. But to be honest, I think I've seen a few established players complaining about messaging, I have not heard any stories of anyone being intimidated and forced.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
I'm not saying they're crying. Noobs tend just not to get involved when they feel intimidated.  Being intimidated is not necessarily by someone "telling" you what to do. I remember the early days of not really knowing who was who and not wanting to make the "wrong" choice. After placing a vote, a telegram that might have been sent with no malice intended with "Please reconsider" could cause me to change a vote, simply because of who sent it. Thank god several years later I no longer give a shit.

[tsunamy]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Kris Kringle" data-cid="114475" data-time="1390095765">
<div>
I strongly oppose banning campaigning at any time of the election period. This is a matter of our political culture, not something to be legislated on. I would regard such a ban as a violation of freedom of speech. We have the opt out proposal to address that issue.

 

Agreed. I also oppose lengthening the voting time. 3 days is already incredibly generous.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

I disagree here. I think three days is short. But, let's be honest, the way our voting works, people start declaring their allegiances well before voting begins so the length of voting time doesn't really matter.

 

Same goes for any discussion of campaign speech and freedom of speech or whatever we're calling it now.

[Punk D]

I just would like to say that I'm no fan of preferential voting. 

 

The reason is a bit complicated. Let's say among 5 candidates (A through E) I prefer A, D, C, B, E in that order. Now let's say A is knocked out, preferential voting would move my vote to D, C, B, E. Let's say that next C is knocked out, now I'm down to D, B, E with D still getting my vote. 

 

The problem I have with this, is that my ranking is based upon 5 available candidates. Who knows if my ranking becomes C, D, B, E if my only choices were C, D, B, E. Or were I left with just C, B, E if I'd rerank them to E, B, C. To me, I prefer actual vs instant runoffs so that I can make a real choice versus a hypothetical one. Does it stand to reason that most people if left with D, C, B, and E would keep that ranking the same? Yes it does. But when I vote, I like to vote taking into consideration my views, the available candidates to select, and the political context.

[Unibot]

I'm thinking it over, but I don't think that your criticism is... rational? As in, makes sense given the parameters of the vote. 

[Punk D]

I'm thinking it over, but I don't think that your criticism is... rational? As in, makes sense given the parameters of the vote. 

 

Voters aren't purely rational.

 

But I can tell you there have been votes where my order changed in a runoff scenario versus my initial preference. Whether that decision was rational or not - I'd say it was, but it may be more political than idealistic.

[Southern Bellz]

The reason why the voting period is long has nothing to do with campaigning. It's to give people the chance to vote and recognizing that different citizens have different activity levels.




Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

[Sandaoguo]

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Do we like the current plurality method used for non-Delegate elections? What other methods could we use for determining a winner?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">I'm an electoral systems geek, so the more complex and mathematical the system, the more I like it. That being said, preferential voting is really super simple. I get the concerns over instant run-offs, and no system will be perfect (see Arrow's impossibility theorem). But in this game, I think we have to strike the right balance when it comes to time. There are two main alternatives to an instant runoff: the two-round system and the exhaustive ballot. Under the two-round system, if nobody gets a majority, then the top two go forward to a second round of voting. That's what we do now. Under the exhaustive ballot, the bottom candidate is removed each vote until somebody gets a majority.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">From a voter's point of view, preferential voting is really easy. You just rank your preferred candidates. It's slightly more complicated to count, but there are a billion websites that can do the counting for us. Eastern Islands of Dharma used preferential voting and it worked out great. I would suggest using it for everything, not just non-delegate elections.

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">Should the election period start sooner than it currently does? <b>Are special elections too long or not long enough</b>? Are regular elections too long or not long enough?

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"> 

<p style="color:rgb(40,40,40);font-family:Ubuntu, helvetica, arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;">I generally think we need a longer campaigning and nomination time. I'm not sure I agree with Unibot that officials elected in a special election should be able to serve a full four month term, independent of all other Cabinet members. Not only would that increase the number of consecutive elections, but it would also create agenda overlap. What happens when you have MoFA or MoA that was elected under a completely different set of voters, preferences, platforms, etc?