A modest proposal

[Sudane Erato]

Although not surprised, I was discouraged by the small turnout in the recent election. This led to a proposal.

I suggestion that in upcoming elections, the names of those people who voted be made public. (Not their votes, of course, just their names.) Those people who voted would then have a "set of privileges" different from the rest of the citizenry, such as having the ability to propose legislation to the RA members, or any other right which would not impact either our finances or our need for participating volunteers.

We speak often about our uniqueness as the oldest functioning SL democracy, and about the reason that so many of our parcels are occupied with tier paying citizens. But when it comes time to actually take 5 minutes and participate in that democracy, the turnout is abysmal. Surely we must be able to develop an incentive.

Sudane.............................

[Beathan]

While turnout is important, I think that forced turnout feels, well, undemocratic.

Also, rather than public shaming or reduction to second-class status as disincentives for not voting, if we want to encourage voting, we should use incentives. Perhaps a rent reduction during the month following the vote.

That said, small turnout, especially in by-elections, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have a small, informed turnout than a large, uninformed one. An even greater threat to a democracy would be the random voting of large numbers of people who don't know anything more than the names on the ballot.

Beathan

[Soro Dagostino]

Following Bethan's suggestion, why not send a reminder to vote with the notice to pay tier. That at least gets a specific message out to the voters that folk do pay attention to. The next month, after the election, one could then turn in the "I voted" button for a $L 100 credit against tier.

[Sudane Erato]

Aww... guys. My life is complex enough. Let's not use financial incentives. That means bookkeeping!

Sudane..............

[Sudane Erato]

While turnout is important, I think that forced turnout feels, well, undemocratic.

Also, rather than public shaming or reduction to second-class status as disincentives for not voting, if we want to encourage voting, we should use incentives. Perhaps a rent reduction during the month following the vote.

That said, small turnout, especially in by-elections, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have a small, informed turnout than a large, uninformed one. An even greater threat to a democracy would be the random voting of large numbers of people who don't know anything more than the names on the ballot.

Beathan

Well, my proposal is hardly "forced turnout", nor is it "public shaming". Leaving aside the issue of special privileges, which still seem reasonable enough to me, simply publishing a list of those who voted, along with an exhortation to vote in the next election, seems more than reasonable.

There are always, in all elections, RL and SL, exhortations to vote. They seem to do little good in either realm. The only things that appear to move voters to act are decisions on issues which directly affect them (in their own minds). But perhaps the prospect of joining the rolls of folks who have voted might be an additional incentive.

Sudane.........................

[Cindy Ecksol]

Following Bethan's suggestion, why not send a reminder to vote with the notice to pay tier. That at least gets a specific message out to the voters that folk do pay attention to. The next month, after the election, one could then turn in the "I voted" button for a $L 100 credit against tier.

Ooooh, I'm loving this idea! Isn't it common practice for the government to pay people to vote in a lot of countries? Seems to me there are a few current disputes throughout the world arising from such practices, but, hey, if that's the price for getting turnout, maybe we should consider it...

On the other hand, maybe Sudane's right and it would be too much bookkeeping. We wouldn't want to have disputes over who got paid (or not) or whether some people got paid twice...

Cindy
<who is getting strange looks from those sitting nearby at the Sarasota airport because she's laughing out loud as she types...>

[Soro Dagostino]

At least your laughing in a place that is warm.

[Guillaume Mistwalker]

I just wanted to reply, point-by-point, to each issue mentioned.

Those people who voted would then have a "set of privileges" different from the rest of the citizenry, such as having the ability to propose legislation to the RA members

Although I agree that we should do more to encourage more voting, I don't believe that the privilege to propose legislation is very democratic. Although the constitution does not provide for any specific provision on the right of citizens to propose legislation to their RA members according to the RA Rules of Procedure (http://portal.slcds.info/index.php?id=281; 3. Citizen Input), "Any citizen may propose legislation ... (by, essentially, submitting it to the LRA or posting it in a place where the LRA can view it)".Therefore, if that page is official, I am afraid that that would mean that this right of all citizens is inviolable unless altered by legislation or a constitutional amendment.

We speak often about our uniqueness as the oldest functioning SL democracy, and about the reason that so many of our parcels are occupied with tier paying citizens. But when it comes time to actually take 5 minutes and participate in that democracy, the turnout is abysmal. Surely we must be able to develop an incentive.

I agree with this, and that is a bit saddening. Though, the "apple doesn't fall far from the tree" and I say this because many people do not vote in RL elections because, typically, their political efficacy is rather poor (meaning that they do not believe that they will make a difference or that their representatives care about what they think/want). Therefore, the only incentives I feel would improve the efficacy or to rally turn-out would be to have economic incentives or make the democracy more reliant on voter turn out by making it a direct democracy or a democracy more reliant on the electorate, which would essentially mean the demise of the current standing constitution. Another idea would be the standing and the prestige of being a regular voter (in this case, I will define them as being "politically elite", as they vote more than the others) by means of solidary incentives (I will define as incentives to one's pleasure or stature amongst a public), so by making a, say, a medal or chivalric order (such as, the Order of the British Empire) of members who are "politically elite" will push more citizens to vote. This way, there would be no violation of any privileges provided in the constitution, but will increase the stature of members of such an order.

But, yes, we definitely must work on the political efficacy of the rest of the citizens and work on, possibly, improving the stature of those who do vote. I am afraid that the CDS is a heavily "elitist" state between those who vote and are politically active and those who don't and are not; it maybe an inherit issue because of several circumstances (say, one's RL efficacy, RL schedule or the Constitution) or it may be an issue which we can alter, by means of material or solidary incentives or other ideas -- all welcome, of course.

That said, small turnout, especially in by-elections, is not necessarily a bad thing. I would rather have a small, informed turnout than a large, uninformed one. An even greater threat to a democracy would be the random voting of large numbers of people who don't know anything more than the names on the ballot.

I must agree with Beathan, though such a lack of voters is worrying. It may actually be better, not only for us -- as in the politically elite -- and the rest of us -- all of the citizens of the CDS. Perhaps it is the view of those who do note vote that this country has managed in its own right by those who are politically active and, therefore, they trust those who are more politically active with the governing of the country. Though it be an oligarchy (not a plutocracy), essentially, it would then have its basis in democracy, as we enable all to vote but others choose not to partake in the elections or the politics of the country because they trust us -- the political elite -- to run the country. It may also be because they simply don't care how the sim is run and they just want a place to live, which would be another extension of their democratic right to do so.

The only things that appear to move voters to act are decisions on issues which directly affect them (in their own minds). But perhaps the prospect of joining the rolls of folks who have voted might be an additional incentive.

This buys in with my idea that we may try to alter the voter turn out but it may be an extension of their democratic will (by them seemingly affirming the rule of the politically elite by not voting, leaving the actual electing to be intra-elite). They may not care about the politics of the country until an issue directly affects them which, to be honest, little will unless if we decide to place waterfalls in all the non-voting citizens' homes and have them pay for the prims I think that would affect them, but it wouldn't exactly do us any good, would it? Second point: that was what I was saying with the membership of the chivalric order or such; such an incentive to join the "rolls of folks" who vote (solidary incentive) would by increased stature by means of a chivalric order or such. I may be over-emphasising this chivalric order idea, but I don't know of many other ideas that increase their stature.

Ooooh, I'm loving this idea! Isn't it common practice for the government to pay people to vote in a lot of countries? Seems to me there are a few current disputes throughout the world arising from such practices, but, hey, if that's the price for getting turnout, maybe we should consider it...

On the other hand, maybe Sudane's right and it would be too much bookkeeping. We wouldn't want to have disputes over who got paid (or not) or whether some people got paid twice...

It is definitely an idea, yes, because that would be a material incentive, and material incentives tend to attract more people than solidary incentives. And it would be alot of book-keeping, yes, but it may just attract more people to vote; though, this may open up the issue of people voting and not having any prior knowledge, as Beathan said. That could turn into a nasty problem, of people getting elected who have little regard for the actual politics of the country. Perhaps it best to keep our open, free and democratically-affirmed "oligarchy" that-any-one-can-join-because-we-provide-suffrage-to-all-citizens.

Ideas? Let's hear them! And, Cindy, I tend to laugh out loud when reading or writing political things to, it's caused me to be the odd one of my family! I seem to laugh when watching Law and Order, just because some of the moments are such great victories!, but I get strange looks from my relatives. And cheers to the warm place, it seems that Soro and I are freezing!

Cheers!

[Callipygian]

I agree totally that voter turnout is poor and some way to encourage more participation would be beneficial. However, I have concerns about posting a list (or identifying in any way) those who do or do not vote.
In the same way that whom one votes for is a private matter, I think the choice to vote or not is also a private matter. Unless there is a willingness to *legislate* a requirement to vote, I don't feel posting a list of those who have or have not exercised their rights is appropriate.

Personally, I suspect that the large number of citizens who do not vote is also the list of people who are seldom seen at events etc. Perhaps, for them, CDS is about a stable location to park their prims and the political activity attached to its existence is unimportant. Having recently been called a 'commie pig', by a long-time resident , for my declared preference in one election, I would also be hesitant to give that person, or anyone for that matter, a list of people to harrangue or insult. Even attempts to persuade more involvement in more civil ways, if based on public announcement of their inactivity seems...well...undemocratic

The suggestion that a voter can turn in their 'I voted' button for some sort of reward seems quite doable, since that is a voluntary declaration of having voted. If that reward is to be monetary as suggested elsewhere, perhaps an interested resident could administer the reward system and any required bookkeeping to avoid adding to Sudane's workload.

Calli

[Patroklus Murakami]

I agree totally that voter turnout is poor and some way to encourage more participation would be beneficial. However, I have concerns about posting a list (or identifying in any way) those who do or do not vote.
In the same way that whom one votes for is a private matter, I think the choice to vote or not is also a private matter. Unless there is a willingness to *legislate* a requirement to vote, I don't feel posting a list of those who have or have not exercised their rights is appropriate.

Personally, I suspect that the large number of citizens who do not vote is also the list of people who are seldom seen at events etc. Perhaps, for them, CDS is about a stable location to park their prims and the political activity attached to its existence is unimportant. Having recently been called a 'commie pig', by a long-time resident , for my declared preference in one election, I would also be hesitant to give that person, or anyone for that matter, a list of people to harrangue or insult. Even attempts to persuade more involvement in more civil ways, if based on public announcement of their inactivity seems...well...undemocratic

The suggestion that a voter can turn in their 'I voted' button for some sort of reward seems quite doable, since that is a voluntary declaration of having voted. If that reward is to be monetary as suggested elsewhere, perhaps an interested resident could administer the reward system and any required bookkeeping to avoid adding to Sudane's workload.

Calli

These arguments are typical of "commie pigs"

But seriously, one thing I've wondered from the start of this thread was whether Sudane was deliberately referencing Jonathan Swifts' 1729 'Modest Proposal'that the Irish poor should sell their children as food to ease their economic woes? (As far as I'm aware this proposal has not been resuscitated recently to tackle the Irish Republic's current economic woes. Perhaps it should?)

[Pip Torok]

But seriously, one thing I've wondered from the start of this thread was whether Sudane was deliberately referencing Jonathan Swifts' 1729 'Modest Proposal'that the Irish poor should sell their children as food to ease their economic woes? (As far as I'm aware this proposal has not been resuscitated recently to tackle the Irish Republic's current economic woes. Perhaps it should?)

Come on now, Pat,

You and I both know what happens to an English sense-of-humour whenever it tries to stride the Atlantic.

Or even the Irish Sea.

It's possible, though unlikely, that Sudane hadn't heard of Swift's little attention-grabber. Far more likely she'll have used its inherent attention-grabbing capabilities, and who's to say she hasn't succeeded?

The timing is bad, Pat. In theory, politicians "over here" are hit with eggs, and occasionally fists. Politicians "over there" are hit with other things.

So, please, Pat, remember that some sensibilities are keener, some skins thinner, than ours ....

"What is our life? A play of passion,
Our mirth the music of division,
Our mother's wombs the tiring-houses be,
Where we are dressed for this short comedy.
Heaven the judicious sharp spectator is,
That sits and marks still who doth act amiss.
Our graves that hide us from the setting sun
Are like drawn curtains when the play is done.
Thus march we, playing, to our latest rest,
Only we die in earnest, that's no jest. "

Sir Walter Raleigh 1552-1618 'On the Life of man'

Pip Torok

[Beathan]

I like it. New motto -- vote or be eaten. That might increase turnout.

[Sudane Erato]

I like it. New motto -- vote or be eaten. That might increase turnout.

Lol!! ... but Beathan, that equates our citizens with children. And we do not mean that!

Sudane................................