Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 10:10:04 GMT -6
The still not very detailed and also not final yet second MRPT party program (44th cosa): On micronations:
The government should not start formal relations with bug nations. However, the semi-permeable wall act is not neccesary for this cause. Dual citizenship will be allowed under certain conditions.On political reform:
No VoC during the first clark. More time for the formation of a government. On the long term an elected seneschal (IRV). Use of IRV for senatorial elections. Party fee for accepting seats in the senäts. No secret Ballot. Only 50% of the votes in the Senäts is needed for approval of an act or amendment to the orglaw.On other issues:
Stimulating and protecting Talossan culture, language and traditions. Increasing provincial activity. On the long term maybe fewer provinces. No need to get rid of the 3-strikes law. Fewer ministries. Legalisation of marihuana. SoS is allowed to be involved with a political party. Protecting the monarchy.On previous acts:
The MRPT still supports the Non-Partisan Senator Amendment and The Privacy of Talossans is Paramount Act.Feel free to vote for us. Glüc da Dhi & Alexandreu Bisquinc. |
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Mar 23, 2012 10:11:48 GMT -6
Might I make a suggestion?
The blue text is very hard to read against the black background . Could you use a lighter text?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 10:13:07 GMT -6
So there it is. Now lets see what you guys think. We might still change a few things though, because the elections are still far away.
(notice how other parties use a lot of words for a few ideas and we use a few words for a lot of ideas, maybe we should try longer sentences.)
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 10:19:18 GMT -6
Might I make a suggestion? The blue text is very hard to read against the black background . Could you use a lighter text? Well, blue and orange is kinda our thing, but here's the white version: On micronations: The government should not start formal relations with bug nations. However, the semi-permeable wall act is not neccesary for this cause. Dual citizenship will be allowed under certain conditions. On political reform: No VoC during the first clark. More time for the formation of a government. On the long term an elected seneschal (IRV). Use of IRV for senatorial elections. Party fee for accepting seats in the senäts. No secret Ballot. Only 50% of the votes in the Senäts is needed for approval of an act or amendment to the orglaw On other issues: Stimulating and protecting Talossan culture, language and traditions. Increasing provincial activity. On the long term maybe fewer provinces. No need to get rid of the 3-strikes law. Fewer ministries. Legalisation of marihuana. SoS is allowed to be involved with a political party. Protecting the monarchy. On previous acts: The MRPT still supports the Non-Partisan Senator Amendment and The Privacy of Talossans is Paramount Act. Feel free to vote for us. Glüc da Dhi & Alexandreu Bisquinc. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 13:19:02 GMT -6
How are you defining IRV? Is it 50.1% of the citizenry or just whoever fails to get 50.1% of those who voted?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 13:49:27 GMT -6
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Mar 23, 2012 16:16:10 GMT -6
Meh, IRV.
IRV is innately subject to degenerate cases where ranking someone higher can accidentally cause them to lose; with an open ballot voters can actually consciously engage in such manipulations. And if you're using a secret ballot, the sensible thing is to be using a neutral site like BallotBin for the increased resistance to election official and hacker shenanigans over a system controlled by a Talossan, at which point you can get the superior Ranked Pairs counting system at no additional overhead anyway.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 17:16:42 GMT -6
Well I like Ranked Pairs idea as well, but doing that ourselves might be considered too complicated and I dont think well have a secret ballot in the near future. I would consider IRV a good compromise, as it (at least partly) solves some of the FPTP problems, like extreme vulnerability to tactical withdrawal and tactical voting, and also because in many cases the voters would prefer the winner of IRV over the winner of FPTP in a direct battle. (This happened in the example).
"IRV isinnately subject to degenerate cases where ranking someone higher can accidentally cause them to lose" I never heard of that. Can you give an example?
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 17:30:49 GMT -6
The only example I found of this monotonicity problem is an example in which there are three parties (say left, centre, right) and left voters deliberately put in their first vote second and some other party be it centre or right first, so their party gets eliminated before centre and since the 2nd preference of left is mostly centre, centre wins. Because its so complicated it sounds very manipulative. But in reality the same thing can be done with FPTP. Only they wouldnt even need to use the monotonicity problem. Its basically equivalent to left voters voting centre so right doesnt win. Something which happens a lot in multicandidate FPTP elections.
IRV would still be more fair and more resistent to tactical voting.
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 17:40:46 GMT -6
Anyway I would favour Schulze or RP as well, but I think at the moment IRV is more realistic.
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Mar 23, 2012 18:03:32 GMT -6
Let's consider a case where there are three candidates - ABBA, TUSK, and GLORIA.
So far, 41 votes have been cast, with the following ranks:
16 #1 ABBA, #2 TUSK
2 #1 ABBA, #2 GLORIA
1 #1 TUSK, #2 ABBA
10 #1 TUSK, #2 GLORIA
4 #1 GLORIA, #2 ABBA
8 #1 GLORIA, #2 ABBA
There are two voters who have not yet cast, both who favor ABBA #1, TUSK #2. How should they cast their votes?
If they cast them #1 ABBA, #2 TUSK, then GLORIA wins, because TUSK is eliminated and its second votes put GLORIA over, 22-21. If they cast them #1 TUSK, #2 ABBA, then ABBA wins, because GLORIA is eliminated and its second votes put ABBA up 22-21. So, since they want ABBA to win, they should vote for TUSK #1.
In a secret vote election, they would wake up the next day and go, "Dammit, if I wanted ABBA to win, I should have voted for TUSK". Because they voted the way they preferred, their candidate lost. In an open-vote election, they would deliberately have voted against the way they preferred, and so ensured their preferred candidate won; and all ten TUSK voters who rated GLORIA #2 are going, "Oh, man! If you had voted they way you honestly believe, our #2 choice would have come out ahead of they guy we like the least! You only won because you lied about who you liked best when we were honest!"
|
|
Glüc da Dhi
Secretary of State
Posts: 6,112
Talossan Since: 5-14-2009
|
Post by Glüc da Dhi on Mar 23, 2012 18:25:44 GMT -6
Hmm, I hadnt considered that. Are there any real world scenarios like this? It seems odd that GLORIA supporters favour ABBA and ABBA supporters favour TUSK and TUSK supporters favour GLORIA. So, yeah I guess IRV is not completely resistent to tactical voting either. But still I would guess in a FPTP system TUSK supporters might vote GLORIA because they dont want ABBA to win. In response ABBA supporters might vote TUSK because they dont want GLORIA to win.
I still strongly believe IRV is fairer than FPTP and more resistent to tactical voting. Maybe ranked pairs is even better, though.
|
|
Istefan Perþonest
Cunstaval to Fiôvâ; Regent of the University of Talossa
Posts: 1,024
Talossan Since: 2-21-1998
|
Post by Istefan Perþonest on Mar 23, 2012 18:53:25 GMT -6
Hmm, I hadnt considered that. Are there any real world scenarios like this? It seems odd that GLORIA supporters favour ABBA and ABBA supporters favour TUSK and TUSK supporters favour GLORIA. Ooops. That was actually supposed to be: 8 #1 GLORIA, #2 TUSK
To make it look more like real life, a possible US example: 16 #1 Republican, #2 Libertarian 2 #1 Republican, #2 Democrat 1 #1 Libertarian, #2 Republican 10 #1 Libertarian, #2 Democrat 4 #1 Democrat, #2 Republican 8 #1 Democrat, #2 Libertarian So, we've got a right-leaning electorate here with, unusually, a strong Libertarian party (presumably made viable by IRV being used in the locale). Most Republicans in the district favor the Libertarian over the Democrat, but a couple think the specific Libertarian is a lunatic and would rather have the Democrat. Most of the Libertarians in this election have a special dislike of this election's religious conservative Republican, but one still prefers him to the Democrat. The Democrats, like the Republicans, overall prefer the Libertarian to the Great Enemy, but four of them think the Libertarian is a nut and would rather have the Republican. Then we have two other voters coming along at the end, who are Republicans. If they vote for the Republican #1, the Democrat wins, even if they vote the Libertarian #2. If they vote for the Libertarian #1, the Republican wins (even if they go nuts and vote the Democrat #2). |
|
Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Mar 23, 2012 20:39:10 GMT -6
We have used IRV for electing the President of the Republic for 7 years and it has worked better than fine, and I'm not just saying that because I won the last two times.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 23, 2012 21:32:38 GMT -6
Istafan, I think your example could be a bit confusing. In any case, there is is still a 50.1% vote for a specific candidate. Thus, there is majority support for a candidate who gets elected.
Allow me to give a rather cleaner example-
You have a district of 100 animals, 40 dogs and 60 cats.
There are 3 candidates, 2 cats and 1 dog.
60% of the electorate wants a cat to win. There aren't huge differences between the 2 cats but they split the vote.
Dog - 40 votes
Cat 1 - 35 votes
Cat 2 - 25 votes
In an FPTP system, the will of 60% of the electorate gets ignored. A candidate can win without getting a clear majority of the votes.
In IRV, they are ranked, so because Dog didn't get 51% of vote, it goes into run-off. Thus Cat 2 is eliminated and assuming they all listed Cat 1 as their secondary candidate, Cat 1 wins with a clear majority of the vote.
However, even if some of the Cats (say 11) decided they would rather have the Dog rather than Cat 1, it would still give the dog 51 votes. to Cat 1 49 votes. Thus, there is a candidate that still got 50.1% of the vote minimum.
It's fairly straight forward. I would, however, prefer to see this tried on a provincial level before we institute it in the national government. However, for real world application, one need only look to Australia and Ireland. Also, for us Americans, one need only look to Minneapolis, Berkeley, Oakland, and San Francisco.
|
|
