I have engaged in tactical voting before, which occurs the moment one casts their vote, not taking it back to make some revisions.

I'm in the same camp as Glen on this. I would really prefer secret ballots. With regard to "something coming out during the election that causes people to change their mind" I see it like this: (with some exposition for context)

I've voted early and absentee in nearly every election, local or national, since I turned 18. Out of the many primary, general, and special elections I've participated in within the last five years (i'm nearly 23 now), I think I've voted in person on Election Day twice. Most recently, I voted in the 2020 general election this last week. There were two weeks until Election Day. In my home state of Nebraska, Chris Janicek, the Democratic candidate for US Senate, was revealed to have sent sexually explicit photos to at least one staffer and lost the endorsement of the Democratic Party prior to this general election. I did not vote for him; I voted for the write-in replacement candidate put up by the Nebraska Democratic Party, because this happened a couple of months ago.

Now the question: what if such a revelation appeared within those two weeks before Election Day? Should I be able to change my vote after the election office has already received my ballot? My inclination is no. Once you submit your ballot, there's no takesy-backsies. Sure it's bad, and you wish you would have known about something like this earlier, but when you've already voted, that's it. 

I also don't think you should be able to vote based on seeing who other people have voted for. Having those options turns voting into a tactical game for the most dedicated instead of everyone truly submitting their preferred candidates in order of preference.

I voted for the secret ballot initiative, but it's probably not going to pass, so I'm going to say I support this as the next best, though imperfect, option.

(10-27-2020, 02:16 AM)Domais Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 01:59 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: Tough bologna! Say I submit my ballot. I can't just ask for it back so I can use whiteout and bubble in something else. I fully support this proposal and agree with the argument made in its favor.

Well, luckily this is the internet and not a "real" election. We give people a few days to vote and they should be able to change and modify their vote as they see fit. Let's be honest strategic voting is a DEMOCRATIC. If people want to mid-vote, campaign to get people to change their vote that is again inherently democratic. Voting is open for however many days it is because we should give people time to vote. Under this proposal, voting will actually only be one day as people will shift their voting times to the last second possible so they can make the most informed decision. That is more unhealthy than strategic voting or mid-vote campaigns.

The problem isn't strategic voting, but it's pressure campaigns to get people to change their votes.

And, there is early voting in all sorts of election. If that helps, think of it that way. You don't get to go back later and say "whoops! candidate x said y the day after I voted, so I'm going to change my vote. k thx!" 

We give a timeframe here because we have people from across the globe voting and participating in our elections, not for some other reason. People shouldn't vote until they are informed and ready to make a ballot — if that's waiting until the last possible minute, well — so be it.

I'm in favor here.

(10-27-2020, 02:16 AM)Domais Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 01:59 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: Tough bologna! Say I submit my ballot. I can't just ask for it back so I can use whiteout and bubble in something else. I fully support this proposal and agree with the argument made in its favor.

Well, luckily this is the internet and not a "real" election. We give people a few days to vote and they should be able to change and modify their vote as they see fit. Let's be honest strategic voting is a DEMOCRATIC. If people want to mid-vote, campaign to get people to change their vote that is again inherently democratic. Voting is open for however many days it is because we should give people time to vote. Under this proposal, voting will actually only be one day as people will shift their voting times to the last second possible so they can make the most informed decision. That is more unhealthy than strategic voting or mid-vote campaigns.

Like I addressed in my opening post, I expected opposition on these kinds of "personal rights" bases. Should people be allowed to change their votes? Maybe, you can certainly argue that and you are. But I'm not proposing this because I think being able to change your vote midway through the voting period is inherently good or bad. I'm proposing it because the electioneering that relies upon it is bad. The truly solid way to stop that electioneering without curtailing the ability to change your vote is to have an all-secret ballot election. But Jay proposed that, and it's being voted down for various reasons. This is the second-best alternative if the Assembly won't pass the best one.

(10-27-2020, 09:48 AM)Witchcraft and Sorcery Wrote: I'm in the same camp as Glen on this. I would really prefer secret ballots. With regard to "something coming out during the election that causes people to change their mind" I see it like this: (with some exposition for context)

I've voted early and absentee in nearly every election, local or national, since I turned 18. Out of the many primary, general, and special elections I've participated in within the last five years (i'm nearly 23 now), I think I've voted in person on Election Day twice. Most recently, I voted in the 2020 general election this last week. There were two weeks until Election Day. In my home state of Nebraska, Chris Janicek, the Democratic candidate for US Senate, was revealed to have sent sexually explicit photos to at least one staffer and lost the endorsement of the Democratic Party prior to this general election. I did not vote for him; I voted for the write-in replacement candidate put up by the Nebraska Democratic Party, because this happened a couple of months ago.

Now the question: what if such a revelation appeared within those two weeks before Election Day? Should I be able to change my vote after the election office has already received my ballot? My inclination is no. Once you submit your ballot, there's no takesy-backsies. Sure it's bad, and you wish you would have known about something like this earlier, but when you've already voted, that's it. 

I also don't think you should be able to vote based on seeing who other people have voted for. Having those options turns voting into a tactical game for the most dedicated instead of everyone truly submitting their preferred candidates in order of preference.

I voted for the secret ballot initiative, but it's probably not going to pass, so I'm going to say I support this as the next best, though imperfect, option.

What would we do if a candidate had unsavory foreign connections, which we found out in the middle of the election?

(10-27-2020, 05:43 PM)sandaoguo Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 02:16 AM)Domais Wrote:

(10-27-2020, 01:59 AM)Jay Coop Wrote: Tough bologna! Say I submit my ballot. I can't just ask for it back so I can use whiteout and bubble in something else. I fully support this proposal and agree with the argument made in its favor.

Well, luckily this is the internet and not a "real" election. We give people a few days to vote and they should be able to change and modify their vote as they see fit. Let's be honest strategic voting is a DEMOCRATIC. If people want to mid-vote, campaign to get people to change their vote that is again inherently democratic. Voting is open for however many days it is because we should give people time to vote. Under this proposal, voting will actually only be one day as people will shift their voting times to the last second possible so they can make the most informed decision. That is more unhealthy than strategic voting or mid-vote campaigns.

Like I addressed in my opening post, I expected opposition on these kinds of "personal rights" bases. Should people be allowed to change their votes? Maybe, you can certainly argue that and you are. But I'm not proposing this because I think being able to change your vote midway through the voting period is inherently good or bad. I'm proposing it because the electioneering that relies upon it is bad. The truly solid way to stop that electioneering without curtailing the ability to change your vote is to have an all-secret ballot election. But Jay proposed that, and it's being voted down for various reasons. This is the second-best alternative if the Assembly won't pass the best one.

Then should we ban communists because their policies are bad and don't work? I am a progressive so would I support banning conservatism because conservative policies don't work in my opinion? No, I would not. Just because A (which you admit you are neutral on) can lead to B and B is bad does not mean that we should ban A. A could also lead to C and D which might be good. We should instead ban B. Because B is bad not A. But we seem to be against banning B so, in the end, we should do nothing.

@NorthPrarie - Recall them if they win the election. If they violated the law.

I'm in support of this. Once a ballot is cast, you shouldn't be able to change your vote. If you're that worried about crazy revelations coming out in the middle of the election, vote later.

DM is right. The reality of the situation is this: there’s a bad practice we want to curtail. Electioneering. Since we’re voting down the best solution I guess, this is the second best. Why is it second best? Because of the issues y’all are bringing up. Fortunately, those issues are solvable.

The “right to change your vote” isn’t even a thing in most places in the real world. I can’t change my vote when I vote absentee weeks before Election Day. Why are people so desperate to cling onto it here?

I like being able to change my vote, but I do not think it it's something I feel should be a right. I was opposed to a secret ballot, so I accept this as a reasonable compromise.

(10-27-2020, 07:32 PM)Domais Wrote: Then should we ban communists because their policies are bad and don't work? I am a progressive so would I support banning conservatism because conservative policies don't work in my opinion? No, I would not. Just because A (which you admit you are neutral on) can lead to B and B is bad does not mean that we should ban A. A could also lead to C and D which might be good. We should instead ban B. Because B is bad not A. But we seem to be against banning B so, in the end, we should do nothing.

 I don't think it's really helpful to try to debate this in the context of IRL voting or democracy. I'm talking about how TSP works, not how I think democratic principles work in abstract.