Users browsing this thread:

Hileville · 03-25-2015, 05:01 PM

Now that we have an election under our belts with the new system I suggest the following items to fine tune the process.

Quote:Article 2 - Position Specificities

1. The Delegate and Vice Delegate will run on a joint ticket.
2. Cabinet offices will be voted on separately.
3. Voters during Cabinet Elections shall list candidates from their most to least preferred on their ballot.
4. The winning candidates during a Cabinet Election race shall be the candidate, when paired up against any other candidate, who would surpass any other candidate in terms of support; if no such candidate exists, the winning candidate shall be determined by an instant-runoff vote.
5. In the event that an instant-runoff vote results in a tie nominations for that position will be restarted.
6. Court Justices will be voted through a single ballot, with the four candidates who receive the most votes winning seats.
7. In all elections an option to re-open nominations will be included. For non-judicial elections, if this option receives the most votes the nomination period for that office will be restarted.
8. For Local Council elections, at least one resident must express their support for the nomination of every recognized candidate. Voting for the Local Council shall take place through a regional poll open to all 'native' WA residents. The Local Council will be voted through a single ballot, with the three candidates who receive the most votes winning seats.
9. In the event that more than ten candidates run for the Local Council, the list of candidates shall be divided evenly and randomly as possible in brackets of under eleven candidates each - and the top candidates shall compete as Section 2.4 suggests in a final round of selections. The number of candidates from each bracket which advance to the final round of voting shall be proportional to 10 / (# of Brackets + 1).
10. For Court Justice and Local Council elections, if the option to Re-Open Nominations receives enough votes to be placed within the winning selection, then the nomination period will be restarted for all seats with lesser votes than this option. The candidates who receive the top votes will win however many seats are left to be filled.
11. Voting will occur in a thread viewable to all citizens in which all ballots cast will be public.

Article 4 - Election Commission

1. Elections will be run by a member of the forum administration staff, acting as an election commissioner.
2. A designated Election Commissioner may be appointed if all members of the administration staff will be candidates in the given election, or if no administrator is able to be an Election Commissioner.
3. The Election Commission is responsible for creating appropriate elections threads, verifying nominations, verifying Conflict of Interests disclosures, collecting, counting, and verifying the validity of all ballots, and officiating ballot results.

This will add a line to ensure that in the result of a tie in the IRV that elections can start immediately after the results are tallied. I am also including a line for the elimination of private ballots which I believe is an absolute must. I'm tired of hearing the accusations during elections of vote tampering with Private Ballots. This also provides guidance on what exactly the EC does.

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 05:44 PM by Bears Armed.)

TAC Saxton · 03-25-2015, 05:40 PM

Now this is more like it. Can we attribute the wording in number eleven to a typo/bad grammar?

I am a Super Villain

(This post was last modified: 03-25-2015, 05:40 PM by Rasikal.)

Aramanchovia · 03-25-2015, 05:42 PM

I agree a lot of these areas do need to be discussed. My initial thoughts:

Regarding re-opening nominations if it is a tie, it would probably help get a result in the run off, but does extend the elections further. Can see merits to either option. I am probably more on the against side for this one, as there is always a RON option people can used if they want nominations reopened.

I am personally not a fan of having multiple voting methods (public and private), and think it should be the same for everyone. Preferably public. Voting privately does make it look like you have something to hide. I can support this change, but know it will likely be controversial.

The EC role does need clarification. I believe some of this is before the courts as a legal question and as such cannot comment right now.

Will probably comment further after work.

Hileville · 03-25-2015, 05:43 PM

(03-25-2015, 05:40 PM)TAC Wrote: Now this is more like it. Can we attribute the wording in number eleven to a typo/bad grammar?

Yes. This should be a bit cleaner:

11. Voting will occur in a thread viewable to all citizens in which all ballots cast will be public.

~~Unibot~~ · 03-25-2015, 05:48 PM

It should be said that this is still ambiguous whether the EC actually has the ability to remove citizenship - verifying ballots could just mean verifying whether they're formatted properly, not disenfranchising people altogether.

I like the suggested amendments but I would recommend waiting until after the court rules on the matter, unless a special elections begins - in which case we'll want the amendments to prevent more problems from forming with the next special elections.

Punchwood · 03-25-2015, 06:01 PM

I don't see the point, we don't have a fair voting system currently so I don't see the point in trying to fix it, unless this means scrapping it. IRV Conduct is just FPTP except when there is a tie you have a AV vote. It should be AV or FPTP.

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

Sopo · 03-25-2015, 06:27 PM

I dislike public ballots for the simple reason that I don't want people harassing me when I vote a certain way. Of course, if we went back to FPTP and added runoffs we could do all of this through anonymous polls without the middleman. I don't know why it's anyone else's business how I vote than me.

[Image: VjpdZ2V.png?1]

Apad · 03-25-2015, 06:30 PM

Im against this unless the EC is made accountable to the Assembly. I dont like the EC determining citizenship without that.

Apad
King of Haldilwe

Escade · 03-25-2015, 08:03 PM

I'm for public ballots but this needs some additional clarifications for the roles and responsibilities of the EC.

We proposed having a "Do Not Call" list where people who didn't want to receive campaign TGs or PMs could list themselves. There is no reason for us to have private votes other then for the constant issues of paranoia and fear mongering about election results.

"3. The Election Commission is responsible for creating appropriate elections threads, verifying nominations, verifying Conflict of Interests disclosures, collecting, counting, and verifying the validity of all ballots, and officiating ballot results."

This needs to be tweaked.

We also need to tweak the process for how ECs are chosen and that thread and this one need to be cross-checked.

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

Sopo · 03-26-2015, 12:53 AM

I will repeat that I prefer voting privately because my vote is no one else's business. Public ballots open up our democracy to bullying and uncomfortable levels of electioneering. I prefer to have the option to cast my ballot privately, but I would further prefer we abandon the Condorcet system altogether so we can go back to polls and don't have to worry about an EC counting anything at all.

[Image: VjpdZ2V.png?1]