Oh, I was reading (3) c. to mean if no candidate got more than 50% of the vote, but I guess that's an absolute majority, not just a majority. I'd be happier if it was changed to ensure the winner did recurrent more than 50% of the vote, though. Run offs are fine, I'm sure.

Whoops. I forgot I added that in the draft. But, that's exactly what I meant 
 

I don't support this draft.
I think that the current voting system is fine, and if this was implemented it would be harder for newcomers to gain support (An "establishment" candidate would probably garner more approval votes because of their name recognition, while since newcomers don't have as much name recognition it would be harder for them to garner support)

NP — I'm not going to beat around the bush, that is largely the point. We want people who are well-known and trusted in the region (see the security discussion and idea to make service to the region mandatory before running for delegate).

Personally, if someone isn't well-known by the majority of legislators (at least), they shouldn't be delegate. Delegate's have awesome power (in the literal sense) and it only takes one rouge delegate to f--- things up for a long time. 

That...makes sense.
I'm fully on board with having service to the region before running; but in the 'newcomer' sense I meant people like, say, Beepee, Midand, and I, who would lose out in an election to someone with more name recognition. And sometimes we don't want that; see Tim or Escade.

Midwesterner. Political nerd. Chipotle enthusiast. 
Minister of Culture of the South Pacific // Former Prime Minister

Reply

Oh, I was reading (3) c. to mean if no candidate got more than 50% of the vote, but I guess that's an absolute majority, not just a majority. I'd be happier if it was changed to ensure the winner did recurrent more than 50% of the vote, though. Run offs are fine, I'm sure.

Whoops. I forgot I added that in the draft. But, that's exactly what I meant 
 

I don't support this draft.
I think that the current voting system is fine, and if this was implemented it would be harder for newcomers to gain support (An "establishment" candidate would probably garner more approval votes because of their name recognition, while since newcomers don't have as much name recognition it would be harder for them to garner support)

NP — I'm not going to beat around the bush, that is largely the point. We want people who are well-known and trusted in the region (see the security discussion and idea to make service to the region mandatory before running for delegate).

Personally, if someone isn't well-known by the majority of legislators (at least), they shouldn't be delegate. Delegate's have awesome power (in the literal sense) and it only takes one rouge delegate to f--- things up for a long time.  

That...makes sense.
I'm fully on board with having service to the region before running; but in the 'newcomer' sense I meant people like, say, Beepee, Midand, and I, who would lose out in an election to someone with more name recognition. And sometimes we don't want that; see Tim or Escade. 

I don't think that's completely correct. As Roavin's calculations on the first page indicate, using approval voting would have gone: me (37), RT (33), Beepee (31), Tim (27), Escade (26). If anything, I think Approval Voting would make it less likely that votes would be going simply due to name recognition.

We can keep debating this, but I don't think there will be substantial changes to the bill at this point. So, I'd like to motion this (again) for a vote.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

And I'd like to second it.

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

The LORD is gracious and compassionate, slow to anger and rich in love.
Psalm 145: 8

Reply

[Note: Apologies for the delay]

Legislators,

Please be advised that a vote has been opened here.

The vote will end on 15 January, 2019, at 1:30 p.m. (UTC).


[Edit: The title of this debate thread has been amended from 'Changes to the Election Act' to the current title so as to be consistent with the title of the voting thread]

(This post was last modified: 01-10-2019, 09:39 AM by Amerion.)

Reply

DETERMINATION OF GAMESIDE IMPACT

11 January 2019

Esteemed Legislators,

In accordance with Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter, the Chair has determined that this amendment, should it pass the Assembly, shall be debated and voted upon by the gameside community.^[1]

This determination is based on the particular wording of the proposed amendments to Articles 2 and 3 of the Elections Act, specifically:

...

c. d. The two candidates ranked first and second under IRV with the highest number of approvals will move to a second round of voting conducted via a a poll of Native World Assembly members.
e. Should the voting result in a tie, more than two nations may move onto the second round of voting.

(3) After receiving the top two candidates in the forum election, the sitting Delegate election commissioner will create a week-long regional poll accessible to Native World Assembly members, instructing them to vote for their preferred candidate.
a. A Dispatch containing the campaigns of both all 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.
c. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, the top two candidates will be placed in a runoff election, mimicking the previous round of voting.

As the above changes relate to the gameside community, such an arrangement is appropriate.

The Local Council shall be notified of this decision momentarily and requested that they initiate their processes for debate.

---

[1] Charter, Article XIII Amendment Process, Section 2, stipulates: ‘Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the gameside community. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly.’

Reply

Hey all -- I noticed something during the delegate elections that we need to change.

The current election set up for delegate pushes the two most "extreme" (or different) candidates with different bases of support to the second round. However, the idea was always to have a delegate who could be  a consensus choice and enjoys wide support from both the forum and in-game region.

As such, I think we need to move to approval voting for the first round of the delegate election (similar to how we election the Chair). The difference, however, is that we could move three (or even four) nations onto the second round if we had a tie.

Further, the delegate elections haven't fit well with the current voting system, so this would be a way to make it easier to understand.

Thoughts?

Unless the voting system is already Single Transferrable Vote then I would want it changed to that, other than that I would not want it changed. FPTP is just too wide open to problems, but with STV you just set the number of candidates possible and divide 100 by that and you reach the percentage needed to win the election as a candidate.
So other than that, I am abstaining.

Have a good day.

Seanadia
Legislator

"For the choice of the people, liberty and democracy!"

(This post was last modified: 01-13-2019, 07:53 AM by Seanadia[TSP].)

Reply

AMENDMENT PASSED

15 January 2019

Legislators,

Please be advised that the vote to amend Article 3 of the Elections Act has passed.

The final tally is 37 in favour, 10 in opposition, with 6 abstaining.

A spreadsheet of the vote is available here.

As per the Chair's Determination of Gameside Impact and in accordance with Article XIII, Section 2 of the Charter, this amendment shall now be sent to the Local Council, to be debated and voted upon by the gameside community.^[1]

---

[1] Charter, Article XIII Amendment Process, Section 2, stipulates: ‘Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the gameside community. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly.’

Reply

GAMESIDE PASSES AMENDMENT

26 January 2019

Legislators,

Please be advised that the vote held by a gameside regional poll to amend Article 3 of the Elections Act has passed.¹

The final tally is 48 in favour, 4 in opposition, with 27 abstaining, for a total of 79 votes.

The vote was passed with 92.3% excluding abstentions.

A record of the regional poll is available here.

---

[1] Charter, Article XIII Amendment Process, Section 2, stipulates: ‘Any amendment to the Charter or constitutional laws that directly affects the gameside community or its home governance, as determined by the Chair of the Assembly, must also be debated and voted upon by the gameside community. Additionally, the Local Council may originate amendments to its constitutional structure, which must be debated and voted upon in the Assembly.’

Reply