Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 23, 2008 13:43:45 GMT -6
Ah, I think you mean one more voter in the citizen A group. That way it's 199 Gore - 200 Bush if you can't give two candidates the same score, but 210 Gore - 200 Bush if the citizen A group can give 10 points to each of the candidates they like.
|
|
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 Dec 23, 2008 13:51:12 GMT -6
Instead of this sliding point beauty pageant, lesser of all evils concept- why not change it to read that the Candidate must have a simple majority of ALL votes cast? If not, then a run off ?
In Dreu's example , if he HAD run - say he had gotten 2 votes. Uh, and there had been 8 voters.
XPB would have Three votes, Bitour Three, Dreu two. Then, you have a run off between XPB and Bitour.
People could then vote for Dreu -letting their voices be heard.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 23, 2008 14:00:59 GMT -6
But then if a voter wants to ensure Dreu gets in as there first choice but doesn't mind if XPB gets in, but does not want Ian. Then they have a backup which they would not have in your example above.
|
|
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 Dec 23, 2008 14:09:23 GMT -6
But then if a voter wants to ensure Dreu gets in as there first choice but doesn't mind if XPB gets in, but does not want Ian. Then they have a backup which they would not have in your example above. Then he votes for Dreu, and XPB in the run off. If Dreu is a strong enough Candidate, then he wins. In your case, he's voting for anyone but Ian - or, For the lesser of the worst person. That's not a good way to select a Senator. Vote FOR someone, and convince everyone around you that your candidate is the only one they WANT in there. Don't run the "Vote A, C, B, anyone but D" campaign.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 23, 2008 14:27:18 GMT -6
It's a way to give 2 stronger candidates a chance to have an equal chance to get enough votes to win without a runoff process.
|
|
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 Dec 23, 2008 14:41:16 GMT -6
It's a way to give 2 stronger candidates a chance to have an equal chance to get enough votes to win without a runoff process. But so does a Head to Head competition, or what we have now. If you have 2 strong candidates, why have this point thingy? This point thing- just seems like we don't want to hurt any one's feelings by saying "yes" or " no" - it's more of a "maybe you, maybe you a bit more, maybe you not so much" without actually committing to any one candidate. I don't think elections should be a buffet. Not a "Mostly this, then if I can't have this, then almost as much that, oh, but if I can't have this or that, then I'll settle for that." Elections are 'I want this.' We don't have a sliding scale in the Clark - we don't' vote 60 % for, 40 % against. This Amendment makes a simple idea complicated, and unwieldy.
|
|
Sir X. Pol Briga
Talossan since 11-10-2005 Knight since 12-26-2009
59 is an important number - keep it prime in the thoughts of Talossa
Posts: 1,227
|
Post by Sir X. Pol Briga on Dec 23, 2008 16:53:43 GMT -6
If they were deemed acceptable at some point in a localized area, these proposed systems could go through trials at the provincial (or even teritorrial) level, voting on real issues or candidates that are brought forth, before even bringing a bill to the level of the realm. That way, there would be Talossan experience to reflect upon before attempting to make a fundimental change overall. This would be similar to sufferage in our neighbor the USA. States such as Wyoming led the way in allowing females to cast votes, which eventually made its way into the constitution. Certainly understanding that in that Republic there are many different rules than Talossa, there still should be some way to prototype and pilot any proportional or ranked voting system and obtain valuable data. With the realization that The Honourable Eugene Oh serves as Royal Governor of Pengöpäts by appointment of his majesty, perhaps there could be an election setup for other subordinate positions within that Territorial Government to be drawn from a pool of all Talossans: Some suggestions of possible Territorial Government elected positions: Warden of Uttersouth Warden of Evaniana Warden of Coldstrand Mayor of Everwhite Commissioner of Sport Minister of Culture Superintendent of Transportation These elected officials would serve to advise the Royal Governor, and could be selected in some type of pluralistic fashion from all those Talossans interested in public service towards our most distant possessions. I certainly would have interest in becoming the Warden of Uttersouth! www.kingdomoftalossa.net/index.cgi?lingo=&page=PengopatsXPB
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Dec 23, 2008 22:11:38 GMT -6
WHEREAS Instant Runoff Voting (IRV), which is used in many countries today is also unfair because in the case that there are three parties (two major, and one minor), and one of the major parties "steals" votes from the minor party, that major party can actually lose the election because they got more votes, and May I just point out (from my dear friend Wikipedia): "Advocates of IRV point out that it is not the additional vote in favor of a candidate that can cause the candidate to lose, but rather the change in relative support among the other candidates resulting from a vote switch. It is the switch away from another candidate, whether that switch be to the current winner, or some other candidate, that changes which candidates are in the runoff and can cause a winner to turn loser. Simply adding new first-preferences for a candidate can never cause the candidate to lose -- IRV is monotonic as far as additional votes are concerned." I honestly don't think that IRV (or Preferential Voting, as we call it in Australia) is really that unfair, and I think it's fairer than range voting. In range voting, smart candidates, if they have a minority of voters, would tell the people who like them to vote 0 for the majority candidate so that that candidate has a worse "total" and maybe force a win for the minority candidate. Even if voters for the minority candidate would probably vote 5 for the majority candidate, because they want to see the minority candidate win they would vote 0 for the majority candidate. In this way, it would soon turn into plurality voting. In conclusion, IRV over RV! (it has an I. Yay!)
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 24, 2008 10:07:19 GMT -6
I honestly don't think that IRV (or Preferential Voting, as we call it in Australia) is really that unfair, and I think it's fairer than range voting. I think IRV is also easier to explain to voters and easier for voters to use, also. Less confusing can be important when you can barely get voters to the polls.
|
|
|
Post by Jack Fenton on Dec 24, 2008 10:16:20 GMT -6
I have to agree; I can't see any problems with our current system so far.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 24, 2008 10:25:42 GMT -6
In its own way this really isn't a bad electoral system, but that particular way relies on quite a bit of intellectual engagement with the voting process. I'm not saying we should avoid making our voters think; but not in this format. Given the Cosa is elected by a national list PR method, and the standard ballot (perhaps with preferential voting for the runoff added) is simpler to understand and execute, this reform isn't desirable.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 24, 2008 19:58:45 GMT -6
MZs, This just something I though up after reading Wiliam Poundstone's very provoking and interesting book, Gaming The Vote. [/blockquote] If I got a dime every time Dreu proposed something silly because he read it in a book.... Anyway, here is MY objection. Dreu's premise is flawed. This aims to fix a problem for the near future when each province will have around 40 active participants. So where does the inequity come into play? If I am a citizen of Benito and there are 39 other citizens, in the present system, I need a simple majority. So, I need to persuade 21 citizens to vote for me. In Benito, we are split across three different political parties. We are also under no obligation to vote for our endorsed candidate, nor is a party prohibited from endorsing another party's endorsed candidate. So, let's say in the next election, we have three Senate candidates, myself, Mataiwos Vurinalt and Flip. Now let's say my friend Joe is able to be persuaded to become a citizen of Talossa and becomes a citizen of Benito. He might think Maitaiwos and Flip are great guys, but he has known me longer and we're good friends, so he casts a vote for good ol' Asmourescu. Why is this bad? I want you to think about what your favorite thing about this bill is.... "if my candidate loses, at least my second pick might stand a chance." What? We are voting, we aren't betting on horses. I don't want to "vote" for Flip to Win, Place OR Show. I want to cast my vote for the winning candidate. That Dreu thinks this system is unfair at the level of 40 citizens is absurd. Granted, I think when you get into the millions range, you might be onto something about it being fair. This is just silly. And that you are constantly doing this worries me, because eventually one of these stupid, ill-conceived bills might actually make it into law. The scary part is that normally these are simply statutory laws, but here you are talking about amending the OrgLaw with a system that you say will make things more fair and, well how? Each of your examples have been flawed. Doesn't that make you think?
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 25, 2008 12:37:57 GMT -6
That Dreu thinks this system is unfair at the level of 40 citizens is absurd. Granted, I think when you get into the millions range, you might be onto something about it being fair. You're being too hard on the guy. In your scenario, with 40 voters, you could win with 14 votes against 13 each for Flip and Mataiwos. What if the supporters of each of those guys prefer the one they voted for, but would rather have the other of those two than you for their senator? It's not frivolous or absurd to suggest that something is wrong with the system when a candidate supported by 35% of the voters wins over candidates more acceptable to 65% of the voters.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 25, 2008 13:36:07 GMT -6
That Dreu thinks this system is unfair at the level of 40 citizens is absurd. Granted, I think when you get into the millions range, you might be onto something about it being fair. You're being too hard on the guy. In your scenario, with 40 voters, you could win with 14 votes against 13 each for Flip and Mataiwos. What if the supporters of each of those guys prefer the one they voted for, but would rather have the other of those two than you for their senator? It's not frivolous or absurd to suggest that something is wrong with the system when a candidate supported by 35% of the voters wins over candidates more acceptable to 65% of the voters. ] Amen to that. Thank you
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 25, 2008 13:39:09 GMT -6
Elections should not be based on "Person A, or Person B, but definitely not Person C."
When I cast a vote, I am saying "I think this person is the best candidate for the job." When I rate candidates on a numerical scale and that results in my second choice being elected, that is simply saying
"Person B is good enough."
I don't want "good enough" I want my choice. If my choice fails to win a majority, shucks, better luck next election.
I don't think I'm being too hard, to tell you the truth. Because every time I turn around there is another proposed statutory law. Most are fairly benign. But this is a proposed change to the OrgLaw where we can't simply cast a vote and have them tallied.
This concept was proposed, like many other positions held by Dreu, because he read it in a book and thought it sounded cool. Then he proposed a couple of scenarios to illustrate his point and those scenarios fell through.
So no, Cresti, I really don't think I'm being too hard on him. Because "I read this in a book and it sounds cool" is not a justification to amend the OrgLaw. Doing so reduces us from a nation to a political experiment where we can try all sorts of novel new systems and see if any of them work.
This is a proposed change to a system in anticipation of an unfair election which may or may not actually happen. So, to prevent the possibility of a person winning with only 35% of the vote because the rest of the votes were split, we'll institute an overly complex system that looks more like the personality test on eHarmony than a voting system?
That, to me, is the very definition of absurd.
|
|