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 Feb 4, 2009 19:16:49 GMT -6
Owen, if this gets passed, and enacted-
You won't have to be my assistant. You can have the Office.
I won't be a Citizen if we adopt laws like this.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2009 19:50:10 GMT -6
After reading this and considering the extremely vocal opposition of the SoS - a highly competent man when it comes to voting - I feel I will have to oppose this for the time being out of caution. To switch over the voting system of the nation is something that requires a high degree of certainty. However, I am very intrigued by the system, and would like to see it work. Let's see it done in an active election in a province and provide better results than the current system, and I will be on board. The arguments alone are not convincing enough as it is: let's see it really work, and work better, then we can change.
|
|
|
Post by Eðo Grischun on Feb 4, 2009 19:55:06 GMT -6
After reading this and considering the extremely vocal opposition of the SoS - a highly competent man when it comes to voting - I feel I will have to oppose this for the time being out of caution. To switch over the voting system of the nation is something that requires a high degree of certainty. However, I am very intrigued by the system, and would like to see it work. Let's see it done in an active election in a province and provide better results than the current system, and I will be on board. The arguments alone are not convincing enough as it is: let's see it really work, and work better, then we can change. Can it be so noted that it was I that voiced this sort of idea first? ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 21:45:43 GMT -6
I won't be a Citizen if we adopt laws like this. I'm ... I was ... wait .... huh? I ... HUH?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 22:11:41 GMT -6
Mick: I confess to an extreme level of astonishment. Here is something that I find very encouraging:
[emphasis mine]
I get discussion, debate, and argument. I get disagreement, dissent, and disillusionment. I even get that we're not all friends here. But .... BUT .... we are all countrymen here. You are threatening to leave the country if a bill passes. You are positing abandonment as an alternative to process and procedure.
Astonishment isn't the right word.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 22:43:39 GMT -6
"and have some serious fun doing it,"
I have always counseled others. 'To thine own self, be true". I will have to take my own advice, and be true to myself. I cannot be true to myself, and participate in elections that use this type of voting procedures. I've pointed out countless times (oh, we could actually count, so lets just say a lot) why I object to it.
I really, really do not like this method pf voting that this Amendment proposes. It will make Talossa seriously un-fun for me.
Enough to the point that I will remain loyal to my personal feelings, and I will not vote if I am required to cast a second or third hand vote for a candidate I do not want to see elected ("in the ballot, voters must mark a '1' beside the most preferred candidate, a '2' beside the second-most preferred..."). Yes, it says later that "A voter may choose not to rank some candidates" ... but either way do not like participating in some Beauty Pageant or Chinese menu style of voting. So therefore, I will not vote in the General Elections.
If I do not vote, I would not feel worthy to have a seat in the Cosa.
After 3 times of not voting, I will be stricken from the citizenship rolls.
I cannot, in good faith, conduct an election as SoS where I do not participate. I cannot, in good faith, perform my duties as SoS when I vehemently disagree on how the elections are conducted. I cannot, in good faith, remain SoS if am not a Minster of the Cosa.
If the majority of both houses feel that this Amendment should be adopted, it will be. If the Citizens of Talossa feel that this Amendment should be adopted, it will be. It will then become part of the Org Law. Talossa will have evolved, and re-invented - in a manner I no longer agree with. So, to save time, and to allow Talossa to thrive as it should, I will have to resign as SoS , and resign my Citizenship.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 23:14:09 GMT -6
Mick: Your feelings and position are well stated, and I appreciate your calm and thorough explanation of them. I disagree with your interpretation of how this change would affect individual voting, but that is neither here nor there -- it will be decided by procedure. My lack of familiarity with voting methods in general compels me to concede the high likelihood that I am dead wrong about it anyway.
I am, however, entirely uncomfortable with a Secretary of State -- a leader of the election process, which is an established part of existing law -- who states his intention to abandon his position, his responsibilities, and his very citizenship, if the process he is overseeing comes to a legal and valid decision. And please do not mistake me -- if the bill on the table were disagreeable to me, indeed even if it called for my expulsion from the Kingdom, I would be every bit as displeased with such actions from the leader of said elections.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Feb 4, 2009 23:35:56 GMT -6
It is perfectly reasonable, I believe, for him to declare that he would be unwilling to conduct elections held in a manner which he believed to be unreliable. That seems nothing but consistent and sensible.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 23:38:53 GMT -6
I am, however, entirely uncomfortable with a Secretary of State -- a leader of the election process, which is an established part of existing law -- who states his intention to abandon his position, his responsibilities, and his very citizenship, if the process he is overseeing comes to a legal and valid decision. Danihél - If I can't perform my duties of my Office faithfully - then I do a disservice to the King, the Country, and the Citizens. I would be doing a disservice to you. If the Kingdom adopts this Amendment, then so be it. The will of the people is greater than the grumblings of the SoS. The Kingdom will need a SoS that will vote in the General Elections, if this passes. I , as a Citizen of the Kingdom, won't vote in that Election. I owe it to the King and Kingdom to be the best SoS I can be. I owe it to myself, to be a good Citizen. When they come into conflict - then I owe it to the Kingdom to resign my Office. With this Amendment - if it passes-I don't want to participate in the Kingdom as a Citizen or a SoS. (And, ironically, by a quirk in the Org Law - I can't quit the Office of SoS without resigning my Citizenship. )
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 4, 2009 23:49:51 GMT -6
Mick: I sincerely hope that you serve as SoS for as long as it suits His Majesty, and that your citizenship lasts to your final day on earth. If, as I am almost certain to do if this bill is Clarked, I vote FOR it, I hope you will not consider it in any way a vote in favor of your removal or withdrawl, as I will most certainly not mean it as such.
|
|
|
Post by Daniel Filan on Feb 4, 2009 23:52:54 GMT -6
To be honest, I don't see any problems with this method of voting. It is used in Australia, and it works. It lets voters be more expressive in their ballots, so that election results more accurately reflect the will of the people.
As for "If it's not broke, don't fix it", I'm reminded of a quote by Emanuel Lasker about chess: "When you see a good move, look for a better one." In regards to voting, I would liken Plurality voting to a good move, and IRV to the better one.
|
|
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 Feb 4, 2009 23:56:08 GMT -6
My friend-
I never take a vote contrary to mine as a personal attack. Don't worry. I never take arguments made against my opinion as a personal attack.
I'm of Irish stock, and have a degree in Poli Sci. Argument is often required, and a lifeblood of my existence.
To hold your opinion to yourself because you are concerned about how I would react- that would bother me. That's the Buddhist in me.
Vote how your mind, and your heart tells you to. Do what YOU think is right.
To your own self, remain true.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Feb 5, 2009 6:51:31 GMT -6
Let me take this opportunity to say two things.
Remember that old maxim your teachers used to say when the class was going to vote on something?: Majority rules. Under a plurality system, it's highly possible that a majority will not rule and that, in fact, the minority rules.
There is such a thing as IRV to make sure that the majority does actually rule. No one can win until someone has the majority (>50%) of the vote.
Let's take an extreme situation:
We have Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Joe Biden, and David Duke. Now, since David Duke is a flaming segregationist/full-time jerk he's probably not going to have a majority but it's always possible that he could have 30% of the vote. Now, let's assume that 70% of the country would never vote for him (we can assume this because this is a situation that could happen, I'm not saying it would, but it could.) and, in those 70% of people everyone feels about the same way for all of the other candidates. So, what happens? The vote gets split three ways each ways with Obama, Clinton, and Biden getting 23.33% and Duke getting 30%. Is that really fair? That means that 70% of the country is going to feel disenfranchised because 70% of the country voted against David Duke, but he still won.
Now, tell me Mick. Is that what your mind and heart tell you is right? I see you as a pretty rational guy. But I can't see how it could ever be fair or right to have a person who has only 30% of the vote, with 70% of the country against him, ruling.
The second thing is that I have taken several calls for an IRV election to heart and plan on conducting one today. I will take 4 well-known Talossans randomly and have a mock election with 15 people voting (including the candidates). We will see what happens.
|
|
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 Feb 5, 2009 7:58:26 GMT -6
First, I still don't like this bill and will still absolutely be voting against it.
Within your ridiculous scenarios Dreu I can see your point. I really do. If 70% of an electorate votes among four other candidates because they despise the fifth guy, but that fifth guy cleans up with the remaining 30%, I do understand how that could possibly be a problem.
Now let's look at the likelihood of something like that happening within the Kingdom.
I don't see it happening. We vote for parties, not individuals. Even with multiple parties this last election, a clear majority broke out. And the parties were different enough that people had to decide which platform to support. Had there been the option to vote for second, third, etc I would have left them blank: I didn't like any other platform besides the one I voted for.
In the Senate races, we do vote for individuals. But we have even fewer candidates running for Senate. Some aren't even from the Province they want to represent. Let's say that 90% of the population wants an outsider to be their Senator versus the one insider who is running. The OrgLaw already states that the insider will win. This amendment won't change that.
The parties tend to be different enough that clear majorities break out. If parties are too similar, it would make sense that the two parties should maybe reconcile and merge in order to avoid fracturing their voter base.
If they don't reconcile and merge and they fracture the 60% of the people that voted for them and lose, then that's the parties' fault for not working it out. They could see it coming. Voters also need to make one choice. If they like two parties equally, they still only get one vote. Not one for each party, even if it's a second place vote. If I only like one party, should my party get two votes from me? One for first and one for second?
As for trying this out on a Provincial level as proof of concept, there had better be a bunch of candidates running. And they all have to be from that Province. And actually having differing platforms would help too.
|
|
|
Post by Owen Edwards on Feb 5, 2009 8:16:55 GMT -6
I still haven't had time to discuss the actual Bill in detail, but despite your calm, reasoned explanations, Mick, that is a simply baffling series of decisions you're willing to make. The biggest problem you've stated with "Bills like this" is that they're like a beauty contest...yet actual, functioning nations do very well with them (and have the right to be a little put off by your reaction). Is that justification for threatening not just resignation but RENUNCIATION?
Dear God.
|
|