We've moved, ! Update your bookmarks to https://thesouthpacific.org! These forums are being archived.

Dismiss this notice
See LegComm's announcement to make sure you're still a legislator on the new forums!

Voter Registration
#1

I'm not entirely sold on it myself, but here is a proposal to reform voter eligibility. It draws upon some of the ideas previously proposed by Jay and Comfed, but also introduces some new proposed changes to the debate as well.

This proposal seeks to streamline the process by which South Pacificans can become eligible to vote by allowing any South Pacifican to apply to become a registered voter. Gaining and maintaining that status is contingent upon passing and continuing to pass a standard security check, similar to our current system with legislatorship. However, there are no activity requirements to maintain that status.

Under this system, South Pacificans will no longer be required to participate in our legislature in order to vote for members of the executive. While all South Pacificans who pass the security check will remain eligible to participate in the Assembly, they will not be required to participate regularly in order to maintain their status. This may lead to many inactive members of the Assembly, but I believe it will decrease the number of uninformed voters who vote simply in order to keep their status. Instead, I believe Assembly debate and votes will be driven simply by those with an interest in it and who choose to continue participating.

A security check also necessarily means that elections will be conducted on the forums; most importantly, there will be no second round in Delegate elections conducted by regional poll. In order to vote, South Pacificans must register to vote. In our current system, the Assembly votes first on the forums and then the region as a whole votes by regional poll. In this proposed system, all interested South Pacificans — not just the Assembly — may register to vote, and then a single round of voting is conducted. To alleviate concerns that players who do not use the forums frequently may feel disenfranchised, this proposal codifies a system similar to that employed for this Great Council. Advance notice is provided to all South Pacificans through in-game mechanics, and those interested may submit a voter registration application. Unlike the current system, they will not need to worry about losing that status if they do not check the forum often following the election.

[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]
[-] The following 1 user Likes Pronoun's post:
  • Comfed
#2

I prefer a citizen/registered voter naming convention over a citizen/registered citizen one (which is nonsensical). But the idea of there being no continued activity requirements is also nonsensical.

We need to actually be clear about what we’re trying to build here. You guys get far too caught up in abstracts that don’t ever matter. We want an active player base. We want a legislature that is *actually here* to write laws and be a check on the other branches of government. We want the people voting in our elections to positively contribute to the game, to be active constituents for the people elected.

If you aren’t striving for that, what the hell are we doing here? What’s the purpose of amassing 500 “registered voters” when only 25 of them are active participants? Just a desire to mimic real life law, regardless if it makes sense for the game?

The notion that this would do anything other than balloon the Assembly with uninformed non-contributors *who will certainly still vote, because you are going to constantly ping them and remind them and beg them to do so*, is just wrong. We have a decade of proof that it’s wrong.
[-] The following 2 users Like sandaoguo's post:
  • HumanSanity, Moon
#3

Like I said — I'm not sold on this idea myself. I'm in particular not married to the idea of having the same activity requirements (or lack thereof) for participating in the Assembly and voting in elections; in principle, I'm not opposed to keeping activity requirements for remaining a member of the Assembly.

Actually, I really don't like the 'voter registration' terminology that much either. It does feel, as you note, like it's driven by a desire to mimic real-life law more than by what's best for the region. While I see where you're coming from, I do think there's an alternative perspective worth considering where I disagree with you somewhat. In particular this bit:

(07-19-2022, 08:23 PM)sandaoguo Wrote: We want the people voting in our elections to positively contribute to the game, to be active constituents for the people elected.

Let's take a step back here. Who constitutes an active constituent?

Consider, for example, a newcomer to the region who discovers an interest in military gameplay. They join the SPSF, they're contributing positively to our region, and they're having a lot of fun doing it. Then we hold our next round of Cabinet elections and — whoops! Doesn't matter how many ministries you're in, if you weren't participating in legislative debates, you don't get to vote for our next Minister of Defense (let alone run for the position).

When we link legislatorship to things, like voting in Cabinet elections, that have little to do with, you know, legislating, we only build up more inactivity in the Assembly. It creates a direct incentive for some players who aren't actually interested in legislating to apply for legislatorship. What are the chances that those players will be active in the Assembly? And does that exclude them from being active constituents? Active participation can come in different forms, and the Assembly is certain one of them, but I don't see why it should be the only form.
[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg] Esfalsa | NationStatesWiki | Roleplay | Discord

[Image: rank_officer.min.svg] [Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg] [Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg] [Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]




Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)





Theme © iAndrew 2018 Forum software by © MyBB .