General Election Law Review

[Unibot]

How would it increase the number of elections? It would decrease the number of elections. 

[Farengeto]

How would it increase the number of elections? It would decrease the number of elections. 

By having those four month periods it means that instead of having a simple general election every four months we'd need multiple ones spread out. In the current case that's most of them this April, but then another set in may for CJ and MoFA, possibly one later in April for CoA...

[Geomania]

As an elections geek myself, I am a huge fan of an instant runoff. Preferential voting saves time by eliminating the necessity for a separate runoff election. In addition, preferential voting assures that a person wouldn't be "wasting" a vote if he/she has a first preference for a candidate who will not figure to be close in the election; their 2nd choice could still reflect their input.

 

I should also stress that people shouldn't be dissuaded from the "complexity" of it. Many countries use the instant runoff system (Australia is the first one that comes to mind). I really think it is a useful voting system that would help us democratically elect our leaders while not confusing us to oblivion.

[HEM]

As an elections geek myself, I am a huge fan of an instant runoff. Preferential voting saves time by eliminating the necessity for a separate runoff election. In addition, preferential voting assures that a person wouldn't be "wasting" a vote if he/she has a first preference for a candidate who will not figure to be close in the election; their 2nd choice could still reflect their input.

 

I should also stress that people shouldn't be dissuaded from the "complexity" of it. Many countries use the instant runoff system (Australia is the first one that comes to mind). I really think it is a useful voting system that would help us democratically elect our leaders while not confusing us to oblivion.

 

I think ranking systems are fairly simple actually. I like the idea.

[Cormac]

I oppose preferential voting for the reasons Punk D stated earlier in the thread. I would support majority vote with (non-instant) run-offs if no one achieves a majority, though. I think our elected officials should have more than just plurality support.

 

I agree that the campaign and nomination period, but not the voting period, should be extended. I think this would reduce lobbying during voting if candidates are given more time to lobby prior to voting, without legislating restrictions against lobbying after voting has begun.

 

I'm not a fan of Unibot's special election proposal for the reasons Glen articulated. I do think special elections should be the same length as regular elections though.

[Rebel-topia]

Not a fan of preferential voting. And, as Cormac said, elected officials should have more than plurality support.

 

I also agree that the campaign period should be longer. With some people only being able to view the forums a few times a week, or maybe only on weekends, its hard for them to keep up on the threads and who's campaigned what.

 

I do think we need some way to either opt out of lobbying, or ban it totally. Its only ever happened to me once. I didnt change my vote, but I did change my views on the people running/spamming my inbox.

 

In my opinion, we need full disclosure on voting. Either we go to full open-elections, or maybe we go back to the Assembly appointing Election Commissioners.

[Geomania]

I think our elected officials should have more than just plurality support.

 

And, as Cormac said, elected officials should have more than plurality support.

 

I would like to point out that the current statute explicitly allows for most elected positions to be elected with a plurality vote. This has yet to undermine the legitimacy of our elected officials.

 

 

I do think we need some way to either opt out of lobbying, or ban it totally.

 

I'm very hesitant to legislate what people can or cannot say in this region. And let's not forget that it is very possible that any kind of ban on lobbying would be unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights. It's not like we can equate lobbying to shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre.


 

<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.


 

</div>
 

I echo Kris' sentiments. This is about the social norms of our region. This uproar alone will likely discourage future arm-twisting like this.

[Vibrant Coconuts]

Would there be any way of having a "No Contact" list? At the start of election season, during the nomination stage, people could indicate that they wanted to put on the list, and if they are, lobbying of them would not be allowed. I agree that it would be impractical and probably illegal to ban lobbying altogether.

[Kris Kringle]

That has already been proposed. I think it's called the opt-out list in the Public Voting thread.

[Punk D]

Honestly, there's nothing stopping anyone from saying "please do not contact me". My suggestion is that we create this list immediately. We don't need a law around it and there won't be any particular punishment around it. But, if you do wish to win people's votes you should look at it to make sure you're not contacting people who don't want to be directly contacted. 

[Rebel-topia]

The problem with someone saying "please dont contact me" now, is that it'll be ignored, or "forgotten", or just not seen.

[Punk D]

The problem with someone saying "please dont contact me" now, is that it'll be ignored, or "forgotten", or just not seen.

I'm not sure how elections work in TSP now, but if a link was posted to the list when nominations are being sought, that could work. 

 

Also - if you're on that list and someone contacts you, you know they are either a noob or not paying attention and you can vote accordingly. To me, I don't see a harm to the list and see a potential benefit of people not being contacted. 

 

As a would-be candidate, selfishly, I'd love to know this in order to not contact people via a channel they don't want. 

[Unibot]

I don't get the sentiment that "someone saying "please dont contact me" now will be ignored" -- why would you ignore an opt-out list if you were a campaigner? It is directly in your interests to observe and respect the opt-out list.

 

It's not like telemarketing where you don't LOSE something if you contact someone who isn't interested in buying something -- it's a political campaign. Contacting some cranky fart on the opt-out list, could mean disaster for your campaign -- because then the entire election becomes focused, not on any substantial issue, but the fact that so-and-so got a message from so-and-so (oh the horror!). This is The South Pacific we're talking about here: depending on who you contacted you may even get your candidate charged with treason!

[tsunamy]

I don't get the sentiment that "someone saying "please dont contact me" now will be ignored" -- why would you ignore an opt-out list if you were a campaigner? It is directly in your interests to observe and respect the opt-out list.

 

It's not like telemarketing where you don't LOSE something if you contact someone who isn't interested in buying something -- it's a political campaign. Contacting some cranky fart on the opt-out list, could mean disaster for your campaign -- because then the entire election becomes focused, not on any substantial issue, but the fact that so-and-so got a message from so-and-so (oh the horror!). This is The South Pacific we're talking about here: depending on who you contacted you may even get your candidate charged with treason!

 

While this is a pleasant sentiment, I really think we should continue such discussions on the "Public Voting" thread, since there is no need to have competing Assembly discussions.