Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN
Seneschal
the new Jim Hacker
Posts: 6,635
Talossan Since: 6-25-2004
Dame Since: 9-8-2012
Motto: Expulseascâ, reveneascâ
Baron Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
Duke Since: Feudal titles are for gimps
|
Post by Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN on Dec 9, 2018 17:44:45 GMT -6
OH, I get it now - there's honest confusion. I was thinking of "public vote" to mean the Witt thread. I assume that you were thinking of just those citizens who registered their desire to have their vote publicly announced, including those who voted on the Database directly.
Whatever the numbers, the fact is that the RUMP benefits disproportionately from public voting. But that's not the real argument against public voting. It's that public voting is more susceptible to social pressure. The fact that the RUMP only lost its 9-term majority rule after private voting became an option speaks volumes. Let us reform our voting system entirely on the basis of fairness, outside the grip of social pressure from the "old boys' club", or anyone else who wants to know how their friends voted so they can be either "magnanimous or furious", in KR1's word.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 18:05:25 GMT -6
I'm glad you have resolved your confusion. I wish the fact that you were wildly incorrect in the facts that you used to justify your positions gave you pause to wonder whether those positions were correct.
To my knowledge there is no one alleging that such pressure takes place. unless you are confessing that you have engaged in this with members of your own party who vote publicly? I guess that is possible.
We shouldn't take away the rights of so many citizens on the basis of a purely hypothetical worry. We definitely shouldn't take it away based on tragically flawed ideas about the electorate.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 9, 2018 20:58:10 GMT -6
We shouldn't take away the rights of so many citizens on the basis of a purely hypothetical worry. We definitely shouldn't take it away based on tragically flawed ideas about the electorate. The idea that the main aim of this amendment is to hurt the RUMP is laughable. Anyway, we are not taking anyone's rights away because everyone will still allowed to vote and will still be allowed to publicly discuss how they voted. The worry is not purely hypothetical; many, many countries have secret ballots to address it.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 9, 2018 22:00:32 GMT -6
We shouldn't take away the rights of so many citizens on the basis of a purely hypothetical worry. We definitely shouldn't take it away based on tragically flawed ideas about the electorate. The idea that the main aim of this amendment is to hurt the RUMP is laughable. I didn't think that was your main purpose, but it was the primary thing Miestra was discussing. Anyway, we are not taking anyone's rights away because everyone will still allowed to vote and will still be allowed to publicly discuss how they voted. That's not the same as voting publicly, and you know it. I take a point of pride in publicly supporting my party. But it doesn't even matter that there's a similar analogue, since we shouldn't be stripping rights unless there is a positive reason for it. The worry is not purely hypothetical; many, many countries have secret ballots to address it. It's purely hypothetical in Talossa. I don't like this paleo-derivatist argument. I have long been opposed to doing things just because larger countries do them that way. We should act in ways that make sense for Talossa. Almost every other country has property taxes. Should we implement that, too?
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 12, 2018 13:28:05 GMT -6
Anyway, we are not taking anyone's rights away because everyone will still allowed to vote and will still be allowed to publicly discuss how they voted. That's not the same as voting publicly, and you know it. I take a point of pride in publicly supporting my party. But it doesn't even matter that there's a similar analogue, since we shouldn't be stripping rights unless there is a positive reason for it. I'm actually not sure what the difference is, and there are countless other ways to publicly support your party. First and foremost, people have the right to vote in a free and fair election. You don't have a right to vote in any manner you wish to, and we are trying to make our elections more robust with this reform. I see that you have added the prefix "paleo-" to try discrediting my argument. If paleo-derivitism is a real thing in Talossa, I will stand corrected. We are not proposing this reform simply because other countries do it. Instead, we know the reasoning behind why they do it this way and think it is good. Property tax is thus a terrible comparison because the reasoning behind it for other countries has no relevance to Talossa.
|
|
|
Post by Sir Alexandreu Davinescu on Dec 12, 2018 15:51:46 GMT -6
That's not the same as voting publicly, and you know it. I take a point of pride in publicly supporting my party. But it doesn't even matter that there's a similar analogue, since we shouldn't be stripping rights unless there is a positive reason for it. I'm actually not sure what the difference is, and there are countless other ways to publicly support your party. First and foremost, people have the right to vote in a free and fair election. You don't have a right to vote in any manner you wish to, and we are trying to make our elections more robust with this reform. First and foremost, people have the right to vote in a free and fair election. You don't have a right to decide how people get to vote, and I want to keep our elections robust by preventing the stripping of our rights. YOU: We must do this because it stops pressure on people to force them to vote a certain way, and because other countries do it. ME: Is there any reason to think this pressure exists, or is it hypoethical? YOU: Other countries do this, so it can't just be hypothetical. ME: We shouldn't do this just because other countries do it, we should do what makes sense for Talossa. YOU: No we need to do this because it stops pressure on people to force them to vote a certain way. The circle is now complete. So far, the sole and solitary reasons given for stripping away from a third of our citizens this right is (a) that it could hypothetically be a problem and (b) other countries do it. The reason for (b) seems to actually end up being (a), so that ends up being one reason that doesn't apply. Well, I guess there's also the fever-dream notion that 10000% of the RUMP votes publicly and that Cresti would actually be voting FDT if it weren't for public pressure. Hypothetical reasons are not good reasons to remove the rights of a third of the voters of our country.
|
|
Ian Plätschisch
Senator for Maritiimi-Maxhestic
Posts: 4,001
Talossan Since: 3-21-2015
|
Post by Ian Plätschisch on Dec 12, 2018 18:02:59 GMT -6
I'm actually not sure what the difference is, and there are countless other ways to publicly support your party. First and foremost, people have the right to vote in a free and fair election. You don't have a right to vote in any manner you wish to, and we are trying to make our elections more robust with this reform. First and foremost, people have the right to vote in a free and fair election. You don't have a right to decide how people get to vote, and I want to keep our elections robust by preventing the stripping of our rights. We in fact do get to decide the methods people may use to vote. The SoS has recently proposed allowing to the Chancery to not accept telephone votes, for example. Voting is a right, but you don't have a right to vote using whatever method you want. Yes, we are addressing this problem because many other countries have experienced it and addressed it in this way, even if we don't have any smoking guns indicating it has happened in Talossa. Generally it is better to address issues before they cause problems. As I explained before, we are not stripping anyone's rights away, because everyone will still have myriad options to vote, and will still be able to publicly proclaim how they voted. What exactly, in practice, would be taken away by this reform?
|
|