Public voting?

[Punk D]

His system seems pretty simple.

 

People sign up with an activation code.

 

People vote.

 

Votes are counted.

 

The additional text he's added doesn't change the theme of GR's proposal. Although I still think I like a "No Lobby List" to address the 'problem'.

[Hileville]

I will take a look at GR's system once it is created.  There are things from an admin standpoint that would need to be discussed before we start using something like that.

 

I still prefer all public voting.

[Kris Kringle]

Yes of course. I'm not saying let's use GR's system. My point is, if he's offering to set it up, then we loose nothing by giving it a try. If we find out it's not practical after all, then that's alright. We would still have other options, like public voting.

[Escade]

That is what we are saying, let's do a trial run or three and see how it works out.  If not we've lost nothing but we've gained something in saying, "We did try this other option which worked out in this way."

 

We aren't testing out on an actual election but a few different things instead (or like a Yearbook election). Just to see. 

[Southern Bellz]

I want to make an open call for people who have campaigned to come forward, and post the content of their messages.  I think the assembly deserves to know based on the fact it has made them uncomfortable.

[Belschaft]

It's nice to see that people are still afraid of new technology. Like I said, I'm writing it anyways. If you guys are still afraid to use it when it's finished, that's your loss.Sent from my HTC One V using Tapatalk

Bullshit.


I think moving voting from the forums to untried and unverifiable software is monumentally stupid. That is not the same thing.

[Cormac]

I agree with Belschaft.

 

Also, and no offense, but no one can definitively say we are willing to try it out. Our electoral system is a matter for the entire region and if we're going to switch to an off-forum, unverifiable system there's going to be an Assembly vote on doing so. Anything less would be, what's the word I'm looking for...

 

Anti-democratic.

[Kris Kringle]

Gee I don't know, perhaps that's the whole point of saying "hey, let's try it with a random non government election, so we know if it works". Please point out where exactly is anyone forcing you all to adopt GR's system, because the only thing I see is some outright opposing it and some of us saying that it's at least worth seeing how it actually works. 

[Cormac]

Gee I don't know, perhaps that's the whole point of saying "hey, let's try it with a random non government election, so we know if it works". Please point out where exactly is anyone forcing you all to adopt GR's system, because the only thing I see is some outright opposing it and some of us saying that it's at least worth seeing how it actually works. 

 

I don't care if there are a couple trial runs, but regardless of how well it works in those trial runs, if the system is only under the oversight of one person or in any way open to manipulation by that person, I'm opposed. Those are questions that can be answered now without trial runs.

[Escade]

GR said that he would give control to Hile and the forum administrators. He's neither going to run the elections nor does he want to run them.

 

At this point, we are talking about trying out a new system for a non-assembly vote relating to the TSP Yearbook.  And I'm suggesting that we use two methods for that as well just to verify. 

 

Therefore, let's give peace a chance. Or how about this I will run a TSP Yearbook vote relating to its design as soon as GR is ready to go with his system. 

[Penguin]

boys and girls  can't we all just have some pie 

 

The simple fact of the matter is if we are doing public voting (which i really don't like btw) it should be a FINAL ANSWER type of deal. Canadians have a period of time where they get to say "HEY LOOK AT ME!! THIS IS WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IF YOU LIKE ME!!"  IMO there is no need for, for a lack of a better term , a lacky, to pounce on  you just after a vote has been cast. That is what happened to me. It is the responsibility of the voter to know the platforms and to vote HOW THEY SEE FIT. that is all. They shouldn't be subjected to mind changers after the fact. 

 

 

As for this new fangled system GR is making, I'm not pleased with it. No offense to GR but it seems a bit more trouble than it would be worth and I just don't like the idea. Make it if you're going to because you can do as you please but I wouldn't vote for its approval and use. If you want you to try it out Escade that is your right as Delegate I geuss but please keep in mind that some of us aren't fans. And for those of you who don't agree with it we all need to remember that change isn't always a bad thing if we can remember that it needs to happen. 

[Sandaoguo]

As for this new fangled system GR is making, I'm not pleased with it. No offense to GR but it seems a bit more trouble than it would be worth and I just don't like the idea. Make it if you're going to because you can do as you please but I wouldn't vote for its approval and use. If you want you to try it out Escade that is your right as Delegate I geuss but please keep in mind that some of us aren't fans. And for those of you who don't agree with it we all need to remember that change isn't always a bad thing if we can remember that it needs to happen. 

 

The main problem I have with you guys is the system doesn't even exist. You are saying you don't like something you've never seen, never used, and probably don't fully understand. I may sound like a tech elitist, but I do get the sense from people who "just don't like" the system is that they "just don't understand" the system. Which is why it's important for you to actually use it when I finish it. But those people who "just don't like" it sound like they have no plans of even trying it out.

[Kris Kringle]

I give up. I honestly don't understand this reasoning. Several people are just saying "I don't care if it works. I just don't want it". Well that's a most irresponsible way of discussing reforms to our voting system. You are saying it won't do good in our region, but don't even want the chance of making sure if it works or not. What's this? I want to make clear that I fully support Glen's proposal, and if once developed it works, I'll support its adoption.

[Sandaoguo]

My system may be terrible. We won't know until I write it and we test it. So, let's all just keep an open mind about what we don't know. The main point behind the system I'm offering is that I want to solve both the issues we have -- the intimidating and coercion problems of all-public voting, and the fraud and non-verifiable problems of all-private voting. All other suggestions so far do not even attempt to solve both.

[Drugged Monkeys]

Per SB's request[spoiler]I'm not going to tie some pretty little bow on this PM and pretend like it is a casual hello. This is about the current MoFA election.


I am sending this message to all citizens who have currently voted for Arbiter08, RON, or Abstained. This is the only message you will receive from me (unless you respond with a question, of course).


This election is down to the wire. I am a few votes behind Sandaoguo, and this is an election I would really like to win.


I've been serving in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for a month now. I have spent time completely restructuring the Ministry, and I have put my heart and soul into creating new energy around "being an ambassador." I believe my experience in TSP is twenty times the experience of my opponent, and my expertise in the TSP Ministry of Foreign Affairs is rivaled by very few.


I have been at the forefront of the fight to keep The South Pacific an independent, active region abroad, and I want to serve as your Ministry of Foreign Affairs.


If you have confidence in me, I would like to ask you to change your vote to me. If you don't, I totally respect that.


Up with the South Pacific!

Your friend,

- HEM[/spoiler]


The main problem I have with this telegram is that it undermined my previous vote IMO. It was a three man race, some people voted for Arbitor, they did this because they thought he was the best choice. so for someone to come behind and say "I did this and this for the region, why aren't you voting for me." Made me see " I'm losing the election, your vote is being wasted when you could just vote for me and I will win". I was annoyed and offended. I have major respect for HEM and all he did for the region, but MY vote is MINE to make, nobody else's, leave me alone after I vote.


Is the main reason for moving voting offsite that people don't want to vote publicly or that they don't want to be lobbied? Because both can be solved with simple solutions instead of overanalyzing these issues like every damn thing else we discuss within the assembly. So many options have been put forth only to be stepped on and avoided by people disagreeing with GR's idea.


1.We can set up a no lobby list

2. We can make votes final after they are cast

3. We ALREADY have the "Vote Collector" for private votes. ( Remind me again why people don't like this)

4. We can make it illegal to lobby after voting starts, or limit the amount of lobbying allowed.

5. We can wait and see the outcome of GR's plan. ( Which in my opinion is over doing it) but I am interested to see how it works. After all, it can't hurt. Depends on how complicated it is for citizens to use.


Anything else to add, or are we going to keep going back and forth on the same stuff for days and get nothing done?

[Cormac]

3. We ALREADY have the "Vote Collector" for private votes. ( Remind me again why people don't like this)

 

Private messages can be edited by anyone with database administrative access. I don't know who has that access, and I'm certainly not saying they would do this, but the known possibility that they can calls into question the integrity of our elections.

[Rebel-topia]

 

<blockquote class="ipsBlockquote" data-author="Drugged Monkeys" data-cid="114260" data-time="1389911867">
<div>
3. We ALREADY have the "Vote Collector" for private votes. ( Remind me again why people don't like this)

 

Private messages can be edited by anyone with database administrative access. I don't know who has that access, and I'm certainly not saying they would do this, but the known possibility that they can calls into question the integrity of our elections.

 

</div>
</blockquote>
 

My thoughts behind this, is, if you suspect that any admin would do such a thing, then maybe they shouldnt be an admin in the first place.

 

No matter what the system, if there are private votes, someone will cry wolf. There will always be someone who thinks theres tampering in some way, shape, or form. Whos to say that GR wont write in some back-door for himself to change and/or delete votes? Do I think he would do such a thing? No! But if were playing devils advocate...

[Southern Bellz]

I give up. I honestly don't understand this reasoning. Several people are just saying "I don't care if it works. I just don't want it". Well that's a most irresponsible way of discussing reforms to our voting system. You are saying it won't do good in our region, but don't even want the chance of making sure if it works or not. What's this? I want to make clear that I fully support Glen's proposal, and if once developed it works, I'll support its adoption.

 

Kris, I don't think the argument 'if we haven't tried, we are not allowed to dislike it' really holds up.

 

I notice you do not support my solution of pure public voting, without being allowed to change your vote.  Is it fair for me to say "You are saying it won't do good in our region, but don't even want the chance of making sure if it works or not. What's this?"

 

We haven't tried a lot of the ideas in the threads, because this issue is fairly new.  We are all trying to vocalize what we think is the best solution, because that is what the assembly does.

[Unibot]

Opting out of PMs, IRC solicitations, etc could be the answer. votes remain public, but if you're on that list people should not contact it.

 

It does still allow you as a voter to change your vote. 

 

I kinda like that idea. I do believe there should be a deterrent to ensure people who have made this selection aren't solicited.

I like an opt-out list for campaigners, yes. It's not like campaigners want to campaign to the minority who are going to be annoyed by them campaigning anyway. I think, however, that you should have to opt out of every election -- that way you've got to visit the campaign subforum once before you vote at the very least to opt-out.

 

As for those who are saying election silences are "what RL democracies do" -- it should be noted that only about thirty democracies in the world run some sort of "election silence". My country, Canada, is one of them. It seems to be a Westminister idea -- although election silence is not legally enforced in the UK, it's just a "gentlemen's agreement" (tradition). Alternatively, there's no such thing as "election silence" in the United States, which found election silences to be unconstitutional and a violation of the Freedom of Speech. 

 

Personally, I'm in agreeance with the United States that election silences are a violation of Freedom of Speech -- election day really seems to be the most important day to campaign. I also don't think election silences would work well in a NS Region, given the existing lack of communication getting to voters as it is.

 

I do not know of another region in NS with "finalized" votes -- and that's probably because it would be diasterous. You're really taking what is a small problem for some (lobbying) and throwing the region into a whole host of problems with finalized votes. First, TSP still operates under the archaic first-past-the-post system which means voting early would be an extreme disadvantage if you could not change your vote in the event that your candidate turns out to be a lemon. Second, if something happened during the election period (NS moves quick - and voting runs for a week, not a day like in RL), you'd be stuck endorsing one candidate even if.. he say, made an out-of-the-blue controversial comment or was found to have lied or something. That would mean we would have to pursue a recall shortly after their election, when we could have just changed our votes in the previous system. 

[Kris Kringle]

[quote name="Southern Bellz" post="114270" timestamp="1389914079"][quote name="Kris Kringle" post="114253" timestamp="1389908423"]I give up. I honestly don't understand this reasoning. Several people are just saying "I don't care if it works. I just don't want it". Well that's a most irresponsible way of discussing reforms to our voting system. You are saying it won't do good in our region, but don't even want the chance of making sure if it works or not. What's this? I want to make clear that I fully support Glen's proposal, and if once developed it works, I'll support its adoption.[/quote]

Kris, I don't think the argument 'if we haven't tried, we are not allowed to dislike it' really holds up.

I notice you do not support my solution of pure public voting, without being allowed to change your vote. Is it fair for me to say "You are saying it won't do good in our region, but don't even want the chance of making sure if it works or not. What's this?"

We haven't tried a lot of the ideas in the threads, because this issue is fairly new. We are all trying to vocalize what we think is the best solution, because that is what the assembly does.[/quote]

Uhm, that's not true. I honestly don't oppose all public voting. What I oppose is not being able to change my vote, but only because at some point we may learn something about the candidate, or (s)he may say something I disagree with, and I want to have the liberty to adjust to that situation. My argument isn't that I would oppose it even if tried, my argument is that there are some situations that might arise, and that would make permanent votes inconvenient.

But Glen's proposal can in fact be tried with a different vote (say if we have people choose between cake or pie), so we can know if it will work or not. View it as testing the system in a controlled environment. That is my point: that this proposal can be tested without risks, so why oppose it now, when it hasn't even been tested?

[Arbiter08]

Why Don't we use the topic poll feature on a citizen only access thread? But make it so that you CAN'T see others answers.That is a public vote where your vote is kept secret, and we can still see how a candidate is doing.

I found a way to make it almost impossible for someone to keep track of who votes for who with my system. If somebody wants to ensure a private vote, they can log in anonymously, and not have their name appear when they vote in the poll.

[LadyElysium]

I am not against public voting. I am not against being able to change one's vote. I am not against trying various options with "fun" votes to see what works best/makes everyone most comfortable. I feel a little against lobbying individuals after their votes are cast. I am VERY against attacks/retributions against someone because of their vote. Just my two cents. I think this thread is turning into a spiral that's navigating away from the heart of the discussion.

 

What are the assembly's issues with with voting in general as it stands now? How do we feel about all public voting? About vote changing? lobbying? Once we establish what OUR collective issues are, we can look for ways to implement the changes we want, instead of fighting over the IDEAS of how we might change a few individuals concerns. Can we make a mutually agreeable list of what we want to accomplish here?

[Cormac]

I'm personally for public voting.

 

I have less concern about lobbying, personally, as I don't mind candidates asking me for my vote nor do I particularly care if they hold my vote against me after an election, as I have pretty thick skin at this point. But if lobbying is making a significant number of other people feel uncomfortable I think it should be addressed.

[Sandaoguo]

Whos to say that GR wont write in some back-door for himself to change and/or delete votes? Do I think he would do such a thing? No! But if were playing devils advocate...

 

FWIW, it's very possible to write in a back-door. But I normally make all of my scripts open source, so anybody with tech knowledge (eg. Eluvatar, Afforess) could independently verify if there's a back-door written into it.

[Drugged Monkeys]

We have campaign threads for candidates to post their platforms and for people to ask questions. They can also post on the RMB or send mass TG's ( which people are allowed to op out of BTW). What more do you need as a candidate if these aren't working for you? A new platform IMO.


Someone made the comment that "voters" aren't asking questions in these campaign threads, so why would PM campaign spamming them after they vote change this fact? It's not like they just weren't aware that we have campaign threads. I sometimes just go off of what other people ask candidates or someone else has already asked my question, I'm not going to ask a question just for the sake of asking one. When I ask I want it to be something that I think everyone would like to know the answer. You for know if someone has read your platform or not just because they didn't vote for you, again it's their vote to cast. Use the tools you have available to convince them how to cast it.


I am for public voting, I agree with Cormac that I too do not care what people think of my vote after the elections.