|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 9:24:35 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? I think this whole problem is ridiculous, personally. We consider it unfair that there may potentially be a time when we have enough active citizenry for multiple candidates to dilute the votes to this degree. This has not happened and there really is no indication that it will happen in the very near future. I see no problem with directly electing Senators with a one person on vote system. Sorry guys, I'll fight it tooth and nail. If winning the simple majority is the goal, and the winner takes all with only 30% of the electorate, so be it. That is Democracy at work. If we are going to replace democracy with scorecards then I'd rather go to a direct Monarchy.
|
|
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 10:20:44 GMT -6
I'm with the good Capt'n. I'm against this proposal, and against any change in how we elect Senators .
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 28, 2008 10:41:52 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. Oh, you might be right there. Of course, a situation involving multiple candidates and a moderate voting population has arisen, so I'd say it could have been relevant already. Thanks to Cresti for clearing up the current carpetbagging situation - sounds like we've got a good middle ground. Also, Tim, "If we are going to replace democracy with scorecards then I'd rather go to a direct Monarchy." - I'm a little offended by this. Thanks for calling the processes of democracy in many elections round the world - including the Mayor of London - some kind of beauty contest, (this is to you too Mick), and suggesting a dictatorship would be preferable in those circumstances. Oh how I wish I could live in America, the land of the free and home of the brave, where for 40 years the two main parties have generally presented two candidates whose chief practical difference is preference in animal. Yes, I can be offensive too, but you're both saying that forcing the electorate to choose between the minimum number of candidates - hey, why not make it one - is preferable to allowing them to demonstrate the range of their political opinions and considerations for good governance. If two left-wing candidates get 30% each and a right-wing candidate gets 40%, you think the right-winger has a mandate? You think he deserves to be elected because he managed to bring together all the disparate right-wingers (wow, talk about a mixed mandate for what he can do - right from forms of gold standard protectionism to Ron Paul)? Whereas in a second-preference system, the left-wingers would back each other and merge their vote (hypothetically), which at least gives the final winning candidate a LARGER base of blurred support than the right-winger. I'm just appalled at the weird aggression and unpleasant language being used. Dear God.
|
|
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 28, 2008 10:45:59 GMT -6
If winning the simple majority is the goal, and the winner takes all with only 30% of the electorate, so be it. That is Democracy at work. Majority. You keep using that word - I do not think it means what you think it means. We all agree that someone who gets a simple majority should win. We are debating about what should happen when nobody gets an initial majority of the votes. 30% is not a majority. I wish y'all would stop with the scorecard caricature. Strawman arguments don't make for productive discussion.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 10:46:44 GMT -6
I think the biggest problem we have in our Senate system is that an outsider can represent a province. If a Senator is a Province's representative to the Ziu, this is all sorts of wrong. If the citizenry of a province is so inactive that a Senator cannot be chosen from its ranks, is it right to just put anyone in their place?
If a province is so inactive that not one active citizen can step up and run, maybe we should rethink provincial status for that group.
Owen, you said directly:
And yet, even though these proposals for changes ARE NOT practical in ACTIVE CITIZENRY terms, I am still seeing a lot of support for them.
All of you talk about fairness, and adequate representation. As a citizen of the U.S., I think I'd be quite peeved if a New York Senator didn't even have a house here, but was a resident of Oklahoma instead.
Is a resident of Oklahoma going to look out for my interests as a New Yorker?
Doubtful. And if not one New Yorker was willing to step up to the plate. I'd sooner see the seat remain vacant than allow non-residents to fill it.
But this doesn't seem to concern any of you. What concerns you the most is the possibility that some day our citizenry may become so active that we just have so many citizens running for a Senate seat and we have to worry about someone taking the win with a small percentage of the electorate.
This isn't practical in terms of active citizenry. While this may make sense if we were 10 times the size that we are now and three times as active, it doesn't make sense today. Today it will cause confusion, today it will lead to problems.
All of you are trying to fix a problem which has not come up in the past. If we try to legislate against every possible problem with complicated systems, we are going to cause twice as many unforeseen problems.
My proposed solution was that of a "jungle primary" like the one employed by the state of Louisiana. This was shot down, opting instead for voting for multiple people with one vote.
Sorry, but I refuse to treat Talossa like a political experiment where we should just try a new system because it sounds cool. We are a nation, even if some of us think of Talossa only as an online forum.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 28, 2008 10:47:05 GMT -6
Inigo Montoya wants better representation of people's views!
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 28, 2008 11:02:31 GMT -6
"But this doesn't seem to concern any of you. What concerns you the most is the possibility that some day our citizenry may become so active that we just have so many citizens running for a Senate seat and we have to worry about someone taking the win with a small percentage of the electorate."
Firstly, there are safeguards against carpetbagging; and hey, if you feel that they should be extended (that is to say, if no-one from a province is willing to stand, their seat should be forfeited for the next 2 years)...bring it up. I think that's draconian, and not a positive way to develop the Talossan political scene. So I'd oppose it.
As for plurality...if I'd stood in Cezembre, as opposed to agreeing to having the PP back XPB (in return for his requesting that all CRO national voters vote PP...fat lot that did us!), XPB still would have won...but by a minority. And what, indeed, if I'd preferred Bitour's candidacy (given the CCCP were within the Coalition)? Or he'd preferred mine to XPB's? XPB would be down 4-3 - but still a Senator. (Or again, if the RUMP had run its own candidate, the Coalition vote vs the RUMP vote would have 4-3.)
Now, I grant you, I always preferred XPB anyway, as did Manus. Lucky, that. It still took negotiation and compromise (who was bitching about compromise candidates again?) to ensure he had a majority - which isn't necessarily in the interests of the will of the people, that is representative democracy.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 28, 2008 14:06:11 GMT -6
I'm seeing a lot of the word "carpetbagging" being thrown around which is defined as:
carpetbag - presumptuously seeking success or a position in a new locality; "a carpetbag stranger"; "a capetbag politician"
Now, to me this word refers to a person who say, moves to New York state to establish the minimum residency to run for Senate.
While running for office in a province in which you are not a resident may fall under this definition, I think it important to note that is not my concern.
My concern stems from the following. Let's take a fictional province called Bussolini which later changes its name to Menito. That particular province might have a Senator who is not a resident of Menito. Is that Senator going to act as a representative of Menito or just their own individual interests?
Is that Senator going to be more or less inclined to make contact with their constituents to try to be their voice in the Senats?
The obvious response is that, if not, the people will voice their opposition at re-election time. My contention is that this system offers more potential for abuse for the manner in which Senators are elected.
|
|
Brad Holmes
Cunstaval to Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Atatürkey, and flying by the seat of my RUMP
Posts: 1,014
Talossan Since: 3-16-2006
|
Post by Brad Holmes on Dec 28, 2008 17:38:01 GMT -6
Sorry guys, I'll fight it tooth and nail. I'm with the good Capt'n. I'm against this proposal, and against any change in how we elect Senators . Ditto.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 28, 2008 19:57:18 GMT -6
Good dialectic Brad.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 28, 2008 20:22:26 GMT -6
My concern stems from the following. Let's take a fictional province called Bussolini which later changes its name to Menito. That particular province might have a Senator who is not a resident of Menito. Is that Senator going to act as a representative of Menito or just their own individual interests? Is that Senator going to be more or less inclined to make contact with their constituents to try to be their voice in the Senats? The obvious response is that, if not, the people will voice their opposition at re-election time. My contention is that this system offers more potential for abuse for the manner in which Senators are elected. Oh, broadly I agree this can be a problem. There are some issues with just how much presently provinces can be said to have issues which need to be represented - indeed, I suspect at present the biggest way in which Senatorial representation is useful is creating the groundwork for an elected oversight Senate. If you think it should be addressed, go for it - I'd be willing to dialogue on the best way to change it.
|
|
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 29, 2008 11:34:26 GMT -6
The obvious response is that, if not, the people will voice their opposition at re-election time. My contention is that this system offers more potential for abuse for the manner in which Senators are elected. You make a good point, but that's a different issue. I would support (not that it matters, because I am not in the Ziu) changing the OrgLaw to require that a Senator be a citizen of the province he or she represents. But the fact that amending some different provision of the OrgLaw (Art V Sec 4) would be wise does not mean that amending this one (Art IV Sec 6) is unwise.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Dec 29, 2008 12:38:39 GMT -6
The obvious response is that, if not, the people will voice their opposition at re-election time. My contention is that this system offers more potential for abuse for the manner in which Senators are elected. You make a good point, but that's a different issue. I would support (not that it matters, because I am not in the Ziu) changing the OrgLaw to require that a Senator be a citizen of the province he or she represents. But the fact that amending some different provision of the OrgLaw (Art V Sec 4) would be wise does not mean that amending this one (Art IV Sec 6) is unwise. This is true. My contention is not "if we change one thing, we should change everything" but more along the lines of if we take on an issue, in this case, reform of the Senate Electoral Process, perhaps we should look at the whole process and pinpoint the places where abuse or other unfairness is likely to take place. That isn't to say that Owen's concern could never come up. But which, in our present state, more likely? That one candidate will win by a small percentage of the electorate OR a person serves as the representative to the Senate for a province they don't reside in and have no cultural tie to, thus allowing them to serve their own interests rather than those of the province they represent? I am all about preventing future problems. I am not all about complicated solutions to relatively simple problems that could cause even more problems down the road.
|
|
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 29, 2008 13:07:53 GMT -6
That isn't to say that Owen's concern could never come up. But which, in our present state, more likely? That one candidate will win by a small percentage of the electorate OR a person serves as the representative to the Senate for a province they don't reside in and have no cultural tie to, thus allowing them to serve their own interests rather than those of the province they represent? I would definitely say the former. Our population is growing, the number of political parties is growing, and the OrgLaw already says a non-citizen can't be elected if a citizen gets any votes during the first 15 days of an election. That means trying to get elected as Senator of a province you don't belong to is a huge gamble, because if you have an opponent who is a provincial citizen, you have to hope he's not smart enough to vote for himself during the first half of the election. If he does, you automatically lose. The possibility of multiple candidates splitting up the vote seems increasingly likely, and the possibility of non-citizens (of the province) being elected to the Senäts seems decreasingly likely. So I wouldn't have any problem requiring Senators to be citizens of the provinces they represent, because I think we no longer have a need for the loophole that allowed for non-citizen Senators. But I think avoiding plurality elections is a more practical issue to address, and one that should be addressed before someone gets elected to the Senäts with thirty-something percent of the vote.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Dec 30, 2008 21:14:03 GMT -6
|
|