| A non-ridiculous voting methodology for Delegate |
We definitely shouldn't be changing anything until after the election is done. I proposed this after learning that the vote counting process was completely different from what many of us thought it would be.
And just to clear the air, I was winning when this was proposed. In fact, it would have hurt me at the time. But I'm more interested in having a coherent preferential ballot, than winning an election. Right now, you're punished if your first choice wins the first spot. I don't think that's right. We ask people to list their preferences and tell them there'll be two winners. But then some people don't get to have a say in who the second winner is, because they voted for a popular candidate.
STV is my favourite system and as pointed out IRV is used when just one seat is up for grabs not two.
Europeian Ambassador to The South Pacific
Former Local Council Member Former Minister of Regional Affairs Former High Court Justice
Yeah, I support this. I agree that this should wait until after the elections. I believe it would have been best for Sandaoguo to wait to post this until after, if anything to prevent people saying you were doing this to win. Good luck in the election.
John Hills- President of Ausstan
(01-15-2017, 03:30 AM)Ausstan Wrote: Yeah, I support this. I agree that this should wait until after the elections. I believe it would have been best for Sandaoguo to wait to post this until after, if anything to prevent people saying you were doing this to win. Good luck in the election. I don't quite think that's what Glen was getting at here. Part of the problem is that these things only come up every so often (delegate elections are only every six months) and if we wait to purpose changes they get buried.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
There's another addition to the law we should debate, which is ties. We had a tie this election, and the way the EC chose to break it was to see who had more votes in the previous round, so on and so forth until the tie is broken. Do we want to codify that here?
(01-15-2017, 12:01 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There's another addition to the law we should debate, which is ties. We had a tie this election, and the way the EC chose to break it was to see who had more votes in the previous round, so on and so forth until the tie is broken. Do we want to codify that here?I'd certainly be in favour of that, if only to save time next time it happens. It seemed like a reasonably elegant solution this time. 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
(01-15-2017, 01:34 PM)Seraph Wrote:(01-15-2017, 12:01 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: There's another addition to the law we should debate, which is ties. We had a tie this election, and the way the EC chose to break it was to see who had more votes in the previous round, so on and so forth until the tie is broken. Do we want to codify that here?I'd certainly be in favour of that, if only to save time next time it happens. It seemed like a reasonably elegant solution this time. Yeah, we should probably do it. It worked OK.
John Hills- President of Ausstan
(01-15-2017, 10:17 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:(01-15-2017, 03:30 AM)Ausstan Wrote: Yeah, I support this. I agree that this should wait until after the elections. I believe it would have been best for Sandaoguo to wait to post this until after, if anything to prevent people saying you were doing this to win. Good luck in the election. I understand that too, but I think doing it during the elections would be worse, and make Sandaoguo look like a cheat, etc. I do not believe this but I could understand why someone might do so.
John Hills- President of Ausstan
I fully support this law although we should wait until the elections are finished
I think the original switch to the current system was undertaken (proposed by Unibot?) when we had a delegate\vice delegate running and it was argued at one point that perhaps we could separate delegate from vice delegate to make sure there wasn't too much control being taken by two people who chose to run together.
Now, though, with one position at stake it makes sense to move to a simpler system and I support tsu and Glenn's changes. Escade ~ Positions Held in TSP ~ Delegate | Vice Delegate Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs ~ The Sparkly One ~ My Pinterest |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
translate
. My hobbies include some sports, playing the piano and doing stuff for Regional Affairs during my freetime. I am also an aviation geek who publishes stuff on flight report and tried to stream on twitch (which is inactive so don't bother)
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |