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.

I don't have strong feelings about this issue either way, but I do want to emphasize this point. All of you who are going on about how there are no "takesy-backsies" in RL elections -- that's not the justification you think it is. There's no principle behind that practice. It's simply logistically impossible to let people edit their votes IRL, especially if they're voting on paper, so we don't do it. It's a very different story in TSP. If we stop allowing vote editing, we should do so because we think it will limit electioneering, not because the completely extraneous norms of RL elections must be followed.

~ Aumeltopia ~

Raccoons are bandits! First they steal your food . . . and then your heart/identity!

(This post was last modified: 10-28-2020, 07:41 PM by Somyrion.)

Reply

I know it’s not properly a justification, I’m just confused as to why people are making such a big deal of it since it really isn’t a thing in most places due to aforementioned logistics. Like sure, it’s easier to make it a thing here, but I don’t think it’s desirable and I don’t know why people think it’s especially bad not to have it.

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

I know it’s not properly a justification, I’m just confused as to why people are making such a big deal of it since it really isn’t a thing in most places due to aforementioned logistics. Like sure, it’s easier to make it a thing here, but I don’t think it’s desirable and I don’t know why people think it’s especially bad not to have it.

For instance, if you are U.S. Judge and you die the day before a judgement is set to be released. They cannot count your vote as a part of anything because you're allowed to change your mind up until the judgement is made. We should apply this same logic, people should be able to change their minds up until the end of the vote. This because our minds are mutable and we can therefore change our mind.

Reply

I mean...what if the person just naturally chooses to change their vote?

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

Reply

I don't like the impermanence of being able to change one's vote at any point of the process.  It cheapens the mechanism and people won't take their vote as seriously.  Also, this could also amplify the shenanigans that candidates could pull if they know that they can pressure voters into switching their votes. 

People lose confidence in their preferred candidate after they vote all the time, this isn't a new phenomenon. But it's not like we're driving to a church to drop off an absentee ballot or waiting in a 12 hour line to place one's vote at a polling station.  If people lose confidence in their candidate, there should be another mechanism that would allow them to address their concerns and seek clarification before a victor can be announced after the voting cycle has concluded.

---

Тифона «Тифонька» Кузнецова
Typhona "Typhonka" Kuznetsova

Come and Vacation In Austerager, Pearl of Keylian Ocean!
[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5SMUCMn_BQ]

Reply

Much better than the secret ballot proposal. I support this. The arguments I'm seeing against this seem to be hypotheticals and edge cases.

Did some LC, MoRA, CRS stuff in the past. Do a lot of World Census stuff now.

Reply

I see the reasoning in favour of this; I support this amendment fully.

While there some opposition to this amendment, since no one has anything to change the amendment and the only argument here is for and against, the best way to solve this would be a motion for a vote.

Many of these arguments seem a bit back and forth, too.

(This post was last modified: 10-31-2020, 10:09 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

I have a compromise, you can withdraw your vote but not change it. If needed.

Reply

For instance, if you are U.S. Judge and you die the day before a judgement is set to be released. They cannot count your vote as a part of anything because you're allowed to change your mind up until the judgement is made. We should apply this same logic, people should be able to change their minds up until the end of the vote. This because our minds are mutable and we can therefore change our mind.

I don’t see this as an argument against the proposal. You’re speaking about legal appeals courts, which would be something like the High Court here, not the Assembly or regional elections. Sure, our minds may be “mutable,” but the hypothetical risk of this does not outweigh the issues caused by electioneering.

I mean...what if the person just naturally chooses to change their vote?

Same reasoning as above. I don’t think the risk of this happening outweighs the harms caused by electioneering. I get it, it’s a freedom you *want* to have, but I think it generally falls under the “list of freedoms we need to restrict in order to protect the integrity of our government and elections.”

 
Witchcraft and Sorcery

---

Former Prime Minister and Minister of Defense. Formerly many things in other regions. Defender. Ideologue. he/they.

Reply

I have a compromise, you can withdraw your vote but not change it. If needed.

Even if I thought this was a bad proposal, this doesn't really change anything.

Reply