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.

If you withdraw your vote, you just wouldn't be able to vote at all. Which ... I wouldn't have a problem with, but why?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

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.

If you withdraw your vote, you just wouldn't be able to vote at all. Which ... I wouldn't have a problem with, but why?

A scandal comes out about someone you voted for, rather than changing your vote you withdraw that vote and if enough people withdraw their vote then that person doesn't win.

Reply

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.”

One could argue that that's not an actual freedom.

4× Cabinet minister /// 1× OWL director /// CRS member /// SPSF

My History

Reply

A scandal comes out about someone you voted for, rather than changing your vote you withdraw that vote and if enough people withdraw their vote then that person doesn't win.

The whole point of restricting changing your vote is to stop candidates making campaigns to change people's votes mid-vote-period. This proposal doesn't solve anything - the only thing that changes is instead of the more popular candidate gaining changed votes, now the less popular candidate loses votes, which gives the same result.

That's why I said "this doesn't really change anything" to the proposal.

(This post was last modified: 11-02-2020, 02:31 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

A scandal comes out about someone you voted for, rather than changing your vote you withdraw that vote and if enough people withdraw their vote then that person doesn't win.

The whole point of restricting changing your vote is to stop candidates making campaigns to change people's votes mid-vote-period. This proposal doesn't solve anything - the only thing that changes is instead of the more popular candidate gaining changed votes, now the less popular candidate loses votes, which gives the same result.

That's why I said "this doesn't really change anything" to the proposal.

Actually, it would be the other way around since people could withdraw their vote rather than switch.

But yeah, I suspect any scandal that would be enough to force people to start withdrawing votes, would likely also flag the security apparatus and the EC.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply

Actually, it would be the other way around since people could withdraw their vote rather than switch.

That's what I said 
 

...the only thing that changes is instead of the more popular candidate gaining changed votes, now the less popular candidate loses votes...

(This post was last modified: 11-02-2020, 03:46 PM by Jebediah.)

Reply

I think secret ballots are ridiculous. While it's true that based on current publicly viewable votes can influence/sway a person's casting, it doesn't stop campaigns and pressure from happening behind the scenes and in the open. Manson was notorious for doing that crap in TRR, which is both preferential and public. Despite that, it did make it easy to follow who was voting what that weren't being swayed by only viewing already casted votes/the numbers.

Now moving onto the topic, I'm not entirely sure about this. I don't think it will change anything either. On one hand I find it reasonable to have one vote only, but it also limits choice to changing minds. Personally, I have almost never changed my vote unless it was for reasons such as someone withdrawing from a race or for some illegality of the candidate (though under preferential voting this isn't much an issue since those votes can just be ignored in the case of those two reasons). So while I have no issue with it, I still don't think it will solve anything which then means it's unnecessarily blocking people from changing their minds for any reason.

Manson didn't need people to change their votes in order to vote stack and heavy handedly sway elections. Where he was most successful was canvassing inactive citizens or nooby citizens that didn't know better, and just outright asking literally everyone that existed to vote one way. While I can't say he was always successful, it did lead to mass participation of voters and very close elections every time. Which in this case though it wasn't very competitive despite such.

(This post was last modified: 11-03-2020, 11:10 AM by Damination.)

Reply

I think secret ballots are ridiculous.

Let's agree to disagree. I always vote by secret ballot, and I'd rather not vote at all than be forced to cast a public vote.

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

Reply

I think secret ballots are ridiculous.

Let's agree to disagree. I always vote by secret ballot, and I'd rather not vote at all than be forced to cast a public vote.

Well if Secret Ballot legislation comes back, we can argue over it.

Reply

I'd honestly rather not vote than be forced to vote publicly.

Reply