Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 04:38 PM

Except that we have a limited time-frame here Glen, and no one but you thinks FPTP isn't an awful system. If we don't want to have to conduct the special elections under it, we need to proceed with this as fast as possible.

If you want to have a broader discussion about electoral systems I'm happy to do so, but not when we're up against a short deadline.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Zak6858 · 05-26-2016, 04:47 PM

Um, 3 people doesn't count as everyone Bel.

I am Zadiner/Zak. Part of Assembly, some other stuff, Founder of some other region.
Hey, I have a bunch of issues. You don't need to care.
Emoji of the week: :dodgy:

***sandaoguo*** · 05-26-2016, 04:59 PM

There is no harm in having one election under plurality voting, Bel. There is harm in not fully debating this change and rushing through a vote.

This isn't just saying, "Let's do things the way we've been doing it." You're proposing a different way of doing elections, both in how ballots are filled out and how they're counted. I cautioned on Discord that if you're so upset about holding this current election under plurality voting, that you should move that we vote under the same system as our last elections. Why not just do that? The legal language is already available and we know it works.

But again, changing the way the delegate selection process works requires a vote in-game. Multiple winner IRV is not as simple as you make it out to be. Just running a classic IRV and choose the winner plus the person directly under it isn't how it works. But I can't debate why when you motion your proposal in under an hour with no debate.

If a majority of people are opposed to holding this election under the simple plurality method, then I suggest:

1. Just doing it how we've done it before. Copy the language from the old elections act.

2. Leaving the Delegate selection process alone. This is an entirely new way of electing the Delegate. There will be kinks we need to iron out, and we can do that after the first election under this new two-step system.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

***Roavin*** · 05-26-2016, 05:11 PM

Assuming we don't need to vote on this game-side, we actually have plenty of time before elections start (in 6 days). Motioning this to a vote in hours before our community (consisting of people spread about the various time zones) is, in my mind, very unfair to the community and doing it a disservice.

**Seraph** · 05-26-2016, 05:12 PM

I agree that FPTP is an awful system. I also agree, however, that it is better to use it now and leave time for proper debate than rush in to using an alternative that might not have been fully thought out, or received full Democratic support from the Assembly.

Founder of the Church of the South Pacific [Forum Thread] [Discord], a safe place to discuss spirituality for people of all faiths and none (currently looking for those interested in prayer and/or "home" groups);
And The Silicon Pens [Discord], a writer's group for the South Pacific and beyond!

Yahweo usenneo ir varleo, ihraneo jurlaweo hraseu seu, ir jiweveo arladi.

Salma 145:8

translate

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 05:27 PM

IRV isn't a complex, or confusing system; none of the issues involved in this are, and suggesting to the contrary is simple dishonest. I'm happy to have this debate, but there is, as I have said, a time-limit here; we don't need to proceed to voting immediately, but with the amendment motioned and seconded we can do so within the time-limit.

Further, and as I have now had to point out repeatedly; this isn't an election for multiple seats so multi-member IRV (STV) isn't appropriate or necessary - it would actually be inappropriate. Using single-member IRV (AV) is entirely appropriate.

Addendum: The reason why STV is inappropriate in these circumstances is because there is only one seat to fill; under STV multiple seats can be filled by a single party, which is why the added complexity is required. This isn't the case here, where (for example) Tsu couldn't be both of the candidates sent to the in-game region.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 05-26-2016, 05:51 PM by Belschaft.)

Muncipio de Neiva · 05-26-2016, 06:32 PM

I must say that I agree with Glen. We need more time to debate before we even put this to a vote. Wanting to have a second in the motion right after bringing this topic up, is not even democratic process. You want a democracy in voting? Let every member of the Assembly give their opinion first then go to vote.

My opinion on the voting system: Glen's voting system is probably the greater of the voting options that we have.

***Roavin*** · 05-26-2016, 06:41 PM

I'm not disagreeing with IRV at all, I'm disagreeing with the method. We have enough time without needing to motion immediately, and in my opinion it's a disservice to the community to do so.

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 06:46 PM

Look, I can see the argument that I shouldn't have issued an immediate motion to vote, but it must be remembered that the special elections have to begin within the next seven days; we are on a very real and very tight time limit. But there is absolutely no reason why this can't be discussed now, post motion. Why not do so, rather than simply object to the motion?

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***Roavin*** · 05-26-2016, 07:51 PM

(05-26-2016, 06:46 PM)Belschaft Wrote: Look, I can see the argument that I shouldn't have issued an immediate motion to vote, but it must be remembered that the special elections have to begin within the next seven days; we are on a very real and very tight time limit. But there is absolutely no reason why this can't be discussed now, post motion. Why not do so, rather than simply object to the motion?

[Emphasis mine]

Awe posted a schedule 2.5 weeks ago, and the elections are slated to begin on June 1 (which is 6 days from now). So the limit is real, but also a known quantity - 6 days, which isn't that tight for a simple change. Smile

However - I don't think this is such a simple change. I'm all for preferential voting (and I think most of us are), but maybe on this particular issue, we have been spoiled by this, and its existence makes me somewhat uncomfortable going with something that was explicitly not covered there without another report of that depth. Also, remembering from my research, it seems to me (though this is admittedly subjective) that it's rare that it actually matters. So for this election, I'm actually fine with FPTP; alternatively I would echo Sandaoguo's idea of just using the old Condorcet language for now if we as a community feel too uncomfortable about FPTP to allow it for a single election.

I still don't understand why this comes up now, though. I really don't want to do this, because I realize it's a great way for a newbie like myself to become very unpopular very quickly, but I'm really curious:

April 29th (almost a month ago), the working group draft was pointed. In its introduction (not buried in the text) was this:

sandaoguo Wrote:Elections are switched back to the majority/plurality method. Do people actually like the preferential vote method?

A day later, you write:

Belschaft Wrote:I've given this a proper read through now, and I'm very impressed. There's a few alterations I'd like to put forward, but this is a comprehensive draft that reflects the content of the earlier stages of the Great Council.

On May 9, you write

Belschaft Wrote:I have a bunch of suggested alterations, ranging major issues I've brought up to more minor ones I haven't. I have a semi-complete google docs which I need to finish with them all in.

So you must have been aware of this beforehand, given that you spent lots of time with the draft - presumably both with the introduction and the actual text. And since you mentioned that you brought up the major issues but didn't bring up the minor issues, and you never mentioned any problem with the voting system in that thread, I would presume that means you considered it a minor issue. So why is it such a major issue now all of a sudden?