|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2008 17:11:01 GMT -6
Well, I'd say what is much less hypothetical is the fact that a person can run for the Senate seat of a province they are not residents of.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 17:41:42 GMT -6
Agreed. But is it yet practical to require such a stipulation? Practical in ACTIVE CITIZENRY terms?
|
|
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 27, 2008 17:56:33 GMT -6
Fine, Owen.
I'll leave this discussion. I've made my stance be known. It's not going to change, and I'll be voting against any Amendment to the OrgLaw that arises our of this thread.
|
|
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 27, 2008 18:21:17 GMT -6
The disadvantage is that in a race with only two candidates, things could get hairy, especially if people feel they are obligated to put a second choice. If there are only two candidates, only first-preference votes get counted. So only the voter's favourite candidate matters. What's hairy about that? Well, I'd say what is much less hypothetical is the fact that a person can run for the Senate seat of a province they are not residents of. The OrgLaw does address that already. Votes for a non-citizen candidate are only counted if no candidate who IS a citizen of the province gets any votes during the first 15 days of the election. This makes it almost impossible to get elected as a carpetbagger unless there are no eligible and willing candidates inside the province.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 27, 2008 19:14:06 GMT -6
Fine, Owen. I'll leave this discussion. I've made my stance be known. It's not going to change, and I'll be voting against any Amendment to the OrgLaw that arises our of this thread. Mick, you seem to be taking offence at something and I'm not sure what. Why is a transferable vote - used to good effect in many places - equivalent to a beauty contest? What makes it less democratic or crushingly overcomplicated?
|
|
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 27, 2008 19:48:18 GMT -6
First, I don't think there is anything wrong with the current system. I am a proponent of 'One Person, One Vote'.
This gimmick voting being suggested is like voting for a beauty queen. You give them one score for Swimsuit, one for talent, one for evening gown, then you add up all the votes, and whomever scored the most points over all the categories wins.
I do not agree with "I want A the mostest. But if I can't have A, then I want B. If I can't have B, I want D. Then I want E, but never C.
Like Capt Tim said - you aren't supposed to vote for a Senator like you are at the Derby. You shouldn't vote for Win, Place, and Show. If you want a Candidate to win, you vote for him you campaign for him, you campaign against his opponent. You don't vote for your candidate, then the Field.
This "transferable vote" is merely a way to not hurt someone's feelings. You can vote a 10 for the other guy , and say "Oh, but I did give you a 3!"
It's not defined well. The scale of sliding votes is not defined. Isit always a 10 thru 1 ? Why not 5-1 ? Why not X thru 1, where X is the number of Candidates?
It makes a simple election of a candidate a math problem. It burdens our current system with a series of added steps. It creates more work for the SoS, to produce the exact same out come.
In short. It's not needed, It's a gimmick, and It's not functional for how the Kingdom conducts the voting. Vote "Yes or No", not "Yes, No, and Maybe".
I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 27, 2008 22:14:36 GMT -6
Agreed. But is it yet practical to require such a stipulation? Practical in ACTIVE CITIZENRY terms? I'm going to throw that question right back at you regarding 2nd choices in voting.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 27, 2008 22:28:42 GMT -6
The point here is broadening the mandate for a specific candidate throughout the electorate. If you have the current system and Jim gets 50 votes but Tom gets 40 Jim wins despite the fact that Bob got 20 and 16 of his 20 supporters prefer Tom over Jim while only 4 out of Bob's supporters prefer Jim. that would give Tom 56 total votes in the new system, compared to Jim's total of 54 votes, but not in the current one. How is that fair that even though Tom has a wider support base and a stronger mandate from the entire electorate Jim still wins?
|
|
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 27, 2008 23:00:13 GMT -6
Because Tom can't get a simple majority fo vote for him. Jim can.
If Tom was a good Candidate, he'd get the 56 votes straight out. Obviously, he's not at strong as Jim. Neither is Bob.
So, Jim gets screwed, even though he had 50 people up front say, "I want him". No one else had that many people wanting them so bad, that they voted for him first. Instead, we get a candidate that was elected by second hand votes. Always good to have a 'compromise' candidate winning the election- talk about a mixed mandate.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 27, 2008 23:03:07 GMT -6
It's not a matter of how badly he's wanted, it's a matter of how many voters want him overall.
|
|
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 27, 2008 23:39:59 GMT -6
No, it's not.
If they want him, they vote for him straight up, first off.
Not as a second thought, or a "If my guy sucks so bad, he can't win, how about this guy".
You shouldn't win the Senate because someone bet on you to "Show".
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 28, 2008 0:05:48 GMT -6
Its about the total number of people who want you to represent them. If Jim gets 10 first votes and 15 seconds with 5 thirds, but Todd gets 24 first votes 3 seconds and 2 thirds, with scattered votes going to other candidates as a first choice, isn't it obvious that a wider crossection of the people voting want Jim? Just because Todd got a majority of first choice votes should not discount in any possible way, the will of the majority of the populace.
|
|
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 28, 2008 0:16:32 GMT -6
So, Todd gets the vast majority of votes cast - 24 out of 30 , for "1st Place". Over 2x more than his closest competitor?
And he loses the Election???
And this is fair???
If the will of the people want someone else than Todd as Senator, why did 24 out of 30 vote for him as "1st place" ?
I'm sorry, this is sounding worse and worse as it goes on.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 28, 2008 0:23:13 GMT -6
Hold on until tonight I'm too tired to argue anymore right now.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Dec 28, 2008 1:42:28 GMT -6
Seriously, I think that the best option is IRV where the voter puts a number for every candidate. (Look it up on Wikipedia) Can someone say why runoff elections or range voting is a better idea? The only reason I can think of is that doing the counting under IRV is tedious, which applies to the other methods. And then there's the problem of: Does the current situation need changing? If the most liked candidate can't get 50%, what's so wrong with him getting elected?
|
|