Election Reform Act

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Dec 25, 2008 13:39:09 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

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.

Realising that plurality victories are a bad idea is not novel. That's what runoff elections, which are very common, are designed to prevent. A runoff election gives the people who voted for a loser the chance to pick their second best choice, and elect a candidate supported by a majority.

[Deleted]

Let's break it down to the cause of the problem...

Let's say we have 3 candidates running for a Senate seat. Now let's say that Candidate A receives 30%, Candidate B receives 30% and Candidate C receives 40%.

To me, I say Candidate C should receive their seat and that is a perfectly fair system.

What if, in our fictional province of 40 people, we have 15 candidates and one candidate grabs 40% of the vote? Is this a terrible thing that they were elected.

So we run into the issue in two situations. One is where there are too many candidates running and the other, there are only three candidates but the voting is split, making for a very close race with no one receiving the votes from the majority of the citizenry.

So, one approach is this proposed system, which, if left to a whole bunch of people like me, will be thwarted anyway because we'll all just give one Candidate 10 and the rest 0.

Or, I suppose we could also have a system of primaries.

Say now, those 15 candidates run for the Senate seat. In a primary race, they are all on equal footing. If they receive less than a certain percentage of the vote, they do not move on to the General Election.

In the General Election, those chosen to race will go head to head and from there it is pretty much our present system.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Cresti-

Then let's amend the OrgLaw to require a candidate to win by receiving a majority of ALL votes cast. If no Candidate receives a 50.01% majority of all votes cast, then we have a runoff.


Let's not have this beauty contest style of electing a Senator be put in place. Conducting an election shouldn't be a math problem.

[Flip Molinar]

This is about making yourself bigger as a voter. It's not saying "anybody but that guy" because that guy still gets at least one point from every voter, if this act was amended to work out the kinks.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Dec 25, 2008 14:01:18 GMT -6 Flip Molinar said:

This is about making yourself bigger as a voter. It's not saying "anybody but that guy" because that guy still gets at least one point from every voter, if this act was amended to work out the kinks.

Not necessarily - if everyone give "that guy" a zero vote, he gets no votes. Exactly like if we only vote once.

Why do we need to be "bigger voters" in the first place?

I still say that "One Person, One Vote" is the proper way to run an election.

[Flip Molinar]

But if amended the way I propose, the are no zero or duplicate number votes. That's what's unnecessary.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

So, now, you want to REQUIRE me to give a candidate a vote, no matter how reprehensible they may be?

If I am required to give a Candidate a vote in this beauty queen selection process - what if that person I do NOT want to win, does win by.... one vote?

The one vote I was forced to give him, by your amendment to the amendment?

Is that fair?

[Flip Molinar]

Exactly, which is why 0 votes need to be allowed. I was merely showing you your logic and why it's flawed.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

There is no flaw to my logic, because the whole concept of this beauty queen contest voting is flawed, and silly. Either you allow zero vote, or you don't. You are contradicting yourself

This is a quite unneeded change in the OrgLaw.

[Deleted]

Dec 25, 2008 15:24:43 GMT -6 Flip Molinar said:

But if amended the way I propose, the are no zero or duplicate number votes. That's what's unnecessary.

And then..

Exactly, which is why 0 votes need to be allowed. I was merely showing you your logic and why it's flawed.

I have to say, Flip. I'm not seeing how you pointed out a flaw in Mick's logic.

[Sir C. M. Siervicül]

Dec 25, 2008 13:54:58 GMT -6 Adm. T.M. Asmourescu, O. Ben. said:

Or, I suppose we could also have a system of primaries.

Say now, those 15 candidates run for the Senate seat. In a primary race, they are all on equal footing. If they receive less than a certain percentage of the vote, they do not move on to the General Election.

In the General Election, those chosen to race will go head to head and from there it is pretty much our present system.

Dec 25, 2008 13:57:07 GMT -6 Capt. Sir Mick Preston said:

Then let's amend the OrgLaw to require a candidate to win by receiving a majority of ALL votes cast. If no Candidate receives a 50.01% majority of all votes cast, then we have a runoff.

Let's not have this beauty contest style of electing a Senator be put in place. Conducting an election shouldn't be a math problem.

Well, at least we've (hopefully) moved beyond bashing Dréu for daring to suggest that there's a problem with plurality voting (he's not alone in thinking so) and on to discussing the details of his proposal and possible alternatives. I'm not convinced range voting (as proposed by Dréu) is the best system, but I do think the current system should be reformed.

Both primaries and runoffs would make it possible to ensure that any senator who gets elected has at least some degree of support from a majority of voters. So either proposal would, in my opinion, be an improvement over the current system.

The disadvantages of both approaches are 1) the additional time, expense, and effort of conducting a separate second election when just one would suffice, and 2) the fact that turnout is almost always much lower for primary and runoff elections. The second point is a major obstacle for me. Mississippi just had a runoff election for a seat in the U.S. Senate. Turnout was barely more than half the turnout in the general election, and that was considered good. Election officials had been predicting only one third the turnout. If the same holds true for Talossa -- and I see no reason to assume it won't -- that means primary elections just allow a minority of early voters to determine which candidates the majority will be allowed to choose between, and runoff elections allow a minority of voters to select which candidate of the two most popular with the general electorate gets the Senäts seat.

[Owen Edwards]

You're suggesting the process of fair government should be, effectively, a competitive sport.

Or possibly Highlander.

If I think A and B are both more competent than C, and most people where I live agree, and C gets in because A and B don't unite because they, yknow, think diversity in politics is healthy...

...then the majority of the people where I live will have had our votes and opinions discounted because we chose to support a variety of opinions represented by admirable candidates. And we'll be living under a candidate who the majority of people categorically do not support.

This isn't a prize to be won, this is the happiness and good governance of the people.

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Even if we go to Primary /Election / Runoff system - Then we are still using 3 months to determine who gains the Senate seat.

That is an inordinate amount of time, in my opinion. We are over complicating a simple matter.

One Person, One Vote. I don't need to read a book to figure that out.

[Owen Edwards]

Except the standard system - say as in the London mayoral election - is instantaneous. The second preference votes are dealt with as soon as the full results are in, and the third place and below are eliminated (or the fouth place and below are eliminated, etc).

[Capt. Sir Mick Preston]

Dec 26, 2008 19:03:56 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Except the standard system - say as in the London mayoral election - is instantaneous. The second preference votes are dealt with as soon as the full results are in, and the third place and below are eliminated (or the fouth place and below are eliminated, etc).

and on, and on, and on.


So we vote for months on two seats.

Brilliant!