Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 11:22 AM

The revised Charter moves us back to the FPTP electoral system; FPTP is, to put it simply, bad.

As such, I'm submitting the following amendments urgently, so that we can adopt IRV in time for the special elections;

Quote:1. Election Commission
(1) An Election Commission will be appointed to administer all forum elections, consisting of at least one unique member from the following bodies, or their duly chosen surrogates--
a. The Forum Administration Team, solely to observe,
b. The Council on Regional Security,
c. The High Court.
(2) The commissioners will be responsible for the creation of election notices, the organization of election forums, the verification of candidate eligibility, the distribution and collection of ballots, and counting and verifying cast ballots.
(3) No member of the Election Commission may run for office or hold the office of Delegate, Prime Minister, or Cabinet Minister, during their tenure on the commission.
(4) The commission will be a permanent body, with members replaced as needed due to inactivity or ineligibility by their respective bodies. Two-thirds of the commission, or a majority of the Assembly, may remove a sitting commissioner for corruption or abuse of power.
(5) Any election-related disputes will be arbitrated by the Election Commission.. Commissioners will not finalize any election until all disputes have been settled.

2. Office of The Delegate
(1) The Delegate will be elected in a two-step process, with the Assembly voting on a slate of nominees on the forums, and the top two winners in that process being voted on by regional poll on-site.
(2) On the first of every January and July, the Assembly will convene for the first round of Delegate elections.
a. Any legislator wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform.
b. The campaign and debate period will last one week, after which the Assembly will vote for 3 days.
c. Legislators will cast a ballot, listing the candidates in order of preference; not all candidates need be listed.
d. The two candidates who receive the most votes under the Instant Run-off Voting system will move on to the second round.
(3) After receiving the top two candidates in the forum election, the sitting Delegate will create a week-long regional poll accessible to World Assembly Natives, instructing them to vote for their preferred candidate.
a. A Dispatch containing the campaigns of both candidates will be created to aid voters in their choice.
b. The candidate who wins a majority of the votes will be declared the Delegate-elect.
(4) The incumbent Delegate will coordinate with the Delegate-elect in transitioning the seat, along with cooperation from the Council on Regional Security. Until the Delegate-elect achieves the most endorsements, the incumbent Delegate will still be responsible for all responsibilities that involve use of Delegate-restricted regional controls.

3. Offices of the Cabinet
(1) On the first of every March, June, September, and December, the Assembly will convene to elect the Prime Minister and the Cabinet.
a. For the first 3 days of the election period, legislators may declare their candidacy for only one position.
b. Following this nomination period, a campaign period of one week will start, where candidates may campaign and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platforms.
c. After the week-long campaign period, a voting period of 3 days will start. Legislators will cast their ballots for each position, listing the candidates in order of preference; not all candidates need be listed.
(2) The candidate for each position with the most votes under the Instant Run-off Voting system will be declared the Minister-elect by the Election Commission.
(3) The terms for the incoming Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers will begin the week after elections, during which any and all election-related disputes must be settled. The outgoing Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers will maintain their offices until then.

Motion to vote.

_{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, 11:37 AM by Belschaft.)

Punchwood · 05-26-2016, 11:51 AM

100% agree with you, that's the main reason why I had to take a pinch of salt while voting.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 11:58 AM

Then second my motion ASAP Tounge

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-26-2016, 12:04 PM

A couple things:

1. It's worth having a simple electoral system. That is a benefit in and of itself. It reduces confusion and possible ballot errors.

2. We are a very small community. We're not a city or a country. Pretty much all of our elections are won either uncontested or by a landslide. There haven't been any actual instances where preferential voting came into play. We operate, as a community, in a majoritarian fashion already.

3. Changing the delegate selection process to IRV is not simple. Multi-winner IRV is actually pretty complicated. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lNxwMdI8OWw

4. If we do have preferential voting, we should keep the requirement that all ballots must include all candidates. Leaving out candidates screwed things up before, which is why we ended up requiring it.

5. This change honestly needs *real* debate. It's not just a reversion to the way we did elections before. It's a completely new system. Rushing this is a total mistake. How many times have we fucked ourselves over because somebody felt they needed to rush through "emergency" changes? IRV is not how we've ever done elections. It's not okay to push it through without real debate.

We should simply run our first elections as the new laws require. After that, there will be plenty of time to give this the debate is 100% needs. We don't want another mess of a electoral system because an "emergency" change was pushed through without proper debate.

The last time we debated preferential systems, an entire commission was formed to consider all the possible outcomes. That's the type of thorough debate we need. Plurality voting is objectively simple and understandable. IRV, STV, and other forms of preferential voting are not as simple, and need to be fully fleshed out to ensure there aren't kinks in the laws that end up calling election results into question.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 12:22 PM

Changing to FPTP was not discussed in the GC; it's just something that you put in your final draft without debate, and a considerable number of us missed this. It was also a very bad idea, as FPTP is objectively awful.

1. IRV is a simple electoral system; you rank candidates in order of preference.

2. There have been numerous incidences in the past where candidates have won without a majority of votes, and this can occur whenever there are more than two candidates.

3. As the Delegate election isn't for multiple seats, we don't need to use multi-winner IRV; we simply use standard IRV and proceed to the final stage. Instead of electing a Delegate, the last two candidates are then subject to a final ballot.

4. Not all candidates need to be listed under IRV for it to work, unlike condorcet. If you do not rank all candidates, then you simply are not guaranteed to have your vote count in the later stafges.

5. Special elections are due to start in the next week, so there is limited time for debate. FPTP is objectively speaking a bad system, whilst IRV is the simplest form of preferential voting and in elections with only two candidates operates as if FPTP.

The commission in question was a joke; it ended up recommending a highly complicated system on an academic, rather than pragmatic, basis. IRV - either in the form of AV or STV - is a simple and fair system; FPTP is an unfair system. There is no good reason to make use of FPTP.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 05-26-2016, 12:24 PM

Also, changing the way we select the two people who move on to the in-game Delegate election does have an arguable effect on the in-game community, I'm assuming including that change would require this to be voted upon through an in-game poll as well.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

**Belschaft** · 05-26-2016, 12:25 PM

I disagree with that assessment; we're still sending two candidates to the gameside, merely altering the electoral system used to select them.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Punchwood · 05-26-2016, 04:02 PM

I second Belschaft's motion to vote.

Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member
Former Minister of Regional Affairs
Former High Court Justice

Ryccia · 05-26-2016, 04:03 PM

Third(Wanted to second, but, whatever)

Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)

Local Council Member(April 24-August 11)

Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)

Quotes

[Image: 9ehfkQV.png]

***sandaoguo*** · 05-26-2016, 04:33 PM

This is such a bad idea, you guys. There is no explanation what IRV is, how it works, and how two winners for delegate will be chosen. This is a completely different way of doing elections than we've ever done before. It is irresponsible to push a change through with literally no debate whatsoever.

It was not hidden or secret that the Great Council proposal switched Cabinet elections from the Condorcet method to plurality. It was stated so in the summary, with an explicit question if people liked the preferential ballot system. There was a month of debate, 135 posts, and nobody suggested anything about it.

I don't oppose the preferential system. I just think plurality is simple and easy to understand for everybody. We're trying to make the region more inclusive, and it seems like it's a good idea to make the electoral system simple in that framework. But if the Assembly wants to debate that and possibly change it, that's okay by me.

But this isn't a debate. Literally, this was motioned to vote in minutes. That's not ok, you guys. The last time we looked at preferential voting, we approached it in great detail, and painstakingly explained how it worked, and the pros and cons. That's the kind of thorough debate we need.

Again, this isn't just reverting to how we've done elections. It's an entirely different system. Rushing it through the Assembly in less than a day doesn't bode well for our democracy.

Furthermore, because it changes how the two potential delegates will be sent to the in-game region, this *must* be voted on through an in-game poll as well. So the amendment wouldn't even go into effect until after elections have started. Which just means we should slow down and have an actual debate here.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk