Who ARE the Candidates?

[michelmanen]

Given that this is the current CDS system in place, do you then understand why CARE views it as critical for each party to actually declare at least 4 condidates to the RA before citizens are called to vote?
Or do you think that as long as not legally required, parties can hide behind the inadequacies of the system and provide citizens with the minimal required information regarding who will end up representing them in the RA and deciding on the future of our community for the next six months -and, depending on the decisions taken during this period, for a much longer period after that?

In simple terms, given the acknowledged inadequacies or limitations or lack of openness and transparency of our existing electoral system -or if you prefer, just the reality of it, what stops the SP and the CSDF to voluntarily declare and publicly announce at least 4 candidates to help voters to make a better, more informed decision in the voting booth?

[Beathan]

Michel --

Again, you are missing the point of the theory. The point is that we should not vote for people -- turning each race into a personal popularity contest and each office into something that forever threatens to become a cult of personality. We do not want this to happen -- at all costs. The removal of persons from elections is a brilliant way to handle the situation.

Further, your proposal that each Party must have a minimum of four candidates is silly. A party can have three members and qualify as a party. How could such a party meet your test?

Further, I don't see how announcing four or more candidates will help citizens make informed decisions. In the first place, citizens vote for parties, not individual candidates. Second, parties have platforms, and each candidate should be committed to the party platform. (RA members certainly should be.) If things work as they should -- knowing the identity of candidates adds nothing of value to the voter's decision making process. In theory, the identity of the candidates should matter only if there is a maverick candidate (which is disfavored in the CDS).

Finally, I am not sure that the removal of personality from political elections is a defect of the system. I am on the fence with regard to legislative offices. I think that personality matters -- especially for offices in which the office holder is making unilateral decisions (such as executive or judicial offices). However, RA members stand for principles -- and work collectively with other members to work out and support those principles. In such case, it is the principles that matter -- or, at least, that is how it should be.

Finally, as I have said before, people join the Simplicity Party because they support the Party's principles. One of those principles is that people should be as free as possible to go their own way, do their own thing. This implies that the decision of any given person to agree to represent the SP in the RA is a matter best left up to -- and best communicated by -- the individual. That is how we have left it.

I have acted as SP faction leader and have given the Chancellor, Dean and acting PIO the information required of a faction leader prior to an election. I believe that developing the kind of information and campaign plan that CARE has would be contrary to the principles of the SP -- not because the SP hides things, but because the SP does not engage in mass political action directed by a central authority. In fact, the SP is opposed to such centralized authority -- and it is not improper for the SP to be so opposed.

Beathan

[Aliasi Stonebender]

[quote="Dnate Mars":2by2nmst]We vote for a platform, not a person. The theory is that it does not matter who from the party is serving in the RA, but the seats that the party has. It is the way it has always been, and unless you want to change the constitution, it will stay that way. I don't understand what the big deal actually is?[/quote:2by2nmst]

As far as I can see, the big deal - and a deal which should hardly be news to Michel, as he's already been through it once - is the electoral system that has been in place in the CDS since it was Neualtenburg in Anzere.

To call for change in the system, this is a fine and acceptable thing, and I've certainly lodged my share of complaints. To say that the political factions of the CDS, acting as they [i:2by2nmst]always have[/i:2by2nmst], in full compliance with the law, is somehow a bad thing because "it isn't how I'd do it" is the populist playing to the crowd.

[Bromo Ivory]

I would tend to agree - you don't have to tell who is willing to serve, but the question is why wouldn't you?

[Dnate Mars]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":1sy91p7k]I would tend to agree - you don't have to tell who is willing to serve, but the question is why wouldn't you?[/quote:1sy91p7k]
Because the only people that need to know are the people in the party. You only get to rank the people you want in the to serve for people within your own party. So, as long as you know the people who are running from your party, why does it matter if the rest of the parties know who is running?

This also can help stop personal attacks against people. If you disagree with a party platform, then great, debate it. But if you start going after the people involved, then you can easily get into personal attacks, and no one wants a dirty campaign.

[Beathan]

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3huojyl2]I would tend to agree - you don't have to tell who is willing to serve, but the question is why wouldn't you?[/quote:3huojyl2]

Because they can speak for themselves. Because we want people to focus on our platform, not our personalities. Because some people might be willing to serve only under particular circumstances (time of meetings; other RA members) and the Parties want the flexibility to be represented by the best person willing to serve after the elections. Because the CDS has a political tradition -- and part of that tradition is to avoid personal politicking. Because we don't want to encourage personal attacks by putting people before platforms (which makes personal issues not only relevant, but essential).

Beathan

[Claude Desmoulins]

This may tend toward the long and rambling, but chalk it up to my lame duck status

First the history, Part I is the bit I wasn't around for and must make conjecture about.

Many of the original constitution authors were Americans trying to fix the problems in their RL system when designing one from scratch. The problem they saw in US politics was the personality driven campaign in which candidate X informed us that they were for fresh air and fuzzy slippers while their opponent had voted for second hand smoke. Accordingly, they designed a system to depersonalize elections as much as possible, forcing one to debate platforms because most citizens would vote only for a faction. Interestingly several of these folk later put up individual campaign signs even though only voters in a particular faction could vote for them personally. By making faction members rank individuals during the general election, they sought to make it dificult to vote for a faction with the intent that that vote would result in a particular person being on RA.

History Part II

I arrived on the scene in November 2005. At the time there were two factions, the SDF (not to be confused with the CSDF), political home of most of the community founders, and the MPP, which was not the SDF.

The SDF platform called for:

[quote:bowuhohi]
* Expanding of the number of private sims using investments from citizens and outside investors
* Rebranding the Neualtenburg Projekt as the Union of Social Democratic Sims
* Keeping ourselves as one of SL's cutting-edge experiments
* Preserving public land and minimizing the sale of historic structures
* Striking a balance between private enterprise and city aesthetics
* Creating cities that are functional and artistic
* Passing legislation to protect individual freedoms
* Supporting multilateralism and compromise between factions

[/quote:bowuhohi]

The MPP was even more general

[quote:bowuhohi]
* The protection of individuals rights.
* Freedom of speech and expression for all people.
* The Equal representation of all peoples in government.
* Making sure that any possible laws will benefit the community and its people.
* Making sure that all are viewed as equals under the law and that no individual or group is above the law.
* We believe that education of the people about the project should be a high priority.
* Though we realize our community will reflect real world politics from time to time we believe that only politics relating to our world of Second Life should be represented in the community at large.
* We believe that by protecting the community as a whole that the individual will be protected and will have a place to grow within our community.

[/quote:bowuhohi]

Neither one of these did much to help voters understand what legislation would get passed if they voted a faction into power. There were also several things that were talked about endlessly as good ideas (expansion, constitutional cleanup) but about which nobody ever got so far as to suggest how they might be done. Not knowing any better, I founded a faction (platform first). The original platform posting was 3 Jan 2005. I've posted the original platform to the DPU area for reference.

I had really intended it as a wedge to nudge the other factions into making concrete proposals. Much to my chagrin, I found myself LRA at the end of January, leading a minority government following a razor thin victory. I doubt that would have happened if the ballot had read Claude Desmoulins / Gwyneth Llewelyn / Pendari Lorentz , but it didn't. It read DPU/SDF/ MPP. We had our first resignation before the RA met. as Gwyn went to head the SC after Ulrika's departure. I believe we had a total of six resignations that term, to address Michel's claim of this six months being unprecedented. As a matter of fact the fifth RA (DPU-CSDF) is, AFAIK, the only one in our history which began and ended with all the same RA members.

During the Fourth and Fifth RA (Jan 2006-Jan 2007) many of these things were actively addressed. The second sim went from a "we ought to do that" to CN. The constitution has many fewer ambiguities than it did in January 2006, and there are now clear procedures for elections, replacing members of government who resign, and a regular schedule of budgets, to name a few things.

The question of why I am resigning has come up. The primary reason is "First Life". Changes at my RL work and my son's hospitalizations mean that I lack the discretionary time to be in world much. as Beathan pointed out.

Also I have for the most part accomplished what I became a politician to do. Most of the things listed in that original platform have come to pass. The one issue I still really want to fight for, some sort of federalist structure making local subdivisions politically meaningful, seems to have very little traction. A platform of compromise and problem solving, though good for the community, doesn't inspire folks to be RA candidates.

Beathan said this of me:

[quote:bowuhohi]
Claude is not a glad-hand politician. He is often hard to find inworld -- and has been for as long as I have been in the CDS. However, Claude is always present and active -- and extremely competent and organized -- exactly where the leader of the RA should be -- in the RA. I admit that he is an unusual politician in that he does not tend to socialize overmuch in world -- and when he does he is all business -- but the results have been good for the CDS.

[/quote:bowuhohi]

I could think of few higher compliments.

[Rose Springvale]

i disagree. While the system may be set up to vote for a platform and not a person, the reality is that we vote for people. If i don't trust you, i don't care how pretty your words are. And that will effect where i align my vote. You all feel the same way... look at the statistics from the last election if you don't believe me.

I am completely distrustful of party politics. This RA proposed electoral change. I have to wonder why it didn't act upon it. Maybe it had to do with adhering to party platforms. :: shrug:: who knows?

I would be very happy with a popular vote system. I would be happy to feel that someone might take the time to listen to my concerns. I would be happy to have a connection between voting and accomplishment. This system keeps distance between the people and the representatives. Even today, i tried to talk to a representative about issues solely within the venue of the RA. Did i feel listened to? no, i did not. did i feel represented? not even a little. But then, i don't belong to a party, so according to the philosphy espoused, i shouldn't be represented. If i agree with planks from many different factions...or more importantly, DISAGREE with planks from each platform, who, exactly, is supposed to be representing me?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Gosh, see what happens when you go to sleep! All hell breaks loose on the forums.

There's an issue about personality politics v. platforms here and Claude and others are right in pointing out that the CDS has tried to stress 'platform' over 'personalities', hence our current electoral system. The Electoral Reform proposal I made a few weeks ago would enable both sides to be content in this debate. All voters would see who is standing and which party they support and choose between all of them. I will be looking forward to CARE/Michel's support for this proposal when we debate it after the election.

On the substantive issue (if there ever was one) all the parties have declared their candidates now. The Citizen's Social Democratic Faction posted our election platform here http://forums.neufreistadt.info/viewtopic.php?t=1159 on the forums and inworld and you know now that Beathan is the Simplicity Party candidate.

Nothing to see here folks!

(Except for the expected valedictory post from Michel claiming a 'victory' for CARE/Michel in 'forcing' the other factions to declare their candidates! LOL)

[michelmanen]

OK, I''l bite: CARE strikes another blow for openness, accountablity and democracy in CDS by "forcing" its oponents to publicly list the names of their candidates in the upcoming RA elections! Yeeeeey Us!

Seriously now, do you honestly see a problem with actually letting citizens know who each party' candidates are before the voting actually takes place -as some authors of posts above seem to do?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Gotcha!

Of course not Michel. We in the CSDF think factions *should* publish the list of their candidates in the interests of transparency. I think all of the factions, including the Simplicity Party, intended to all along. Some people are just reacting to you taunting them.

But there is a serious point about 'platforms' v. 'personality cults' here which I think that CARE/Michel are missing. The electoral system in the CDS was carefully designed in order to avoid the kind of personality politics that are features of some electoral systems - it makes me think of student politics in the UK where 'Independents' get elected by promising bread and circuses instead of proposing any practical policies. We have always focussed on issues instead and I think that has been a strength of the CDS system.

But it's good to see support developing for the kind of electoral reform the CSDF proposed at the last election where voters would all be able to choose freely between different factions and candidates and put them in the order they choose. Will CARE/Michel be supporting that policy in the new RA sessi0n?

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Dnate Mars":28kuex2y]
This also can help stop personal attacks against people. If you disagree with a party platform, then great, debate it. But if you start going after the people involved, then you can easily get into personal attacks, and no one wants a dirty campaign.[/quote:28kuex2y]

From what I can tell - with the veiled and not so veiled threats I have received about waging a dirty campaign against me and CARE - this has hardly been a proof in the past!

I can say I have no interest in Ad-Hominem attacks - but I cannot help but wonder when people start slinging around loaded words and phrases like "dictator" "totalitarian" "end of democracy" and so on - that they are performing those attacks by extension.

Aside for partisan issues - I have always felt that knowing who is the pool of likely candidates usually makes for better government in the end (and this could very well be my culture of origin at work here I will admit).

And the way I understand it - I have to rank all the participating parties - and the ones that are the most transparent will get the best considerations from me at least (Of course I will be ranking CARE as my first choice - but I understand there are others to rank, too!)

I suppose this transparency is one thing that attracted me to CARE, and if the other parties, while I agree are complying with the law, refuse a similar transparency - well, this re-enforces my choice thus far!

I would also caution all the flame warriors here -> one of the things that has turned off a lot of people in the past is the flames on the forums!

You may be scoring points against one another here - and it may feel good for 5 minutes - but you *are* dissipating the SIM somewhat!

(Good natured taunting - well that is all good - but this is getting NASTY! )

[Beathan]

Bromo --

First, there is a difference between "transparency" and "nakedness." I must admit that whenever I read CARE's platform, or evaluate CARE's political actions, in light of CARE's stated principles, I think "Emperor's new clothes." I suppose that such nakedness can be mistaken for transparency -- but I think such a claim would be a mistake.

I don't think that is is fair to contrast the Factions on "transparency". First, from within the Faction -- all the Factions are transparent. Second, with regard to governmental action, all (or almost all) the factions support openness (transparency in government) -- public meetings, published transcripts, right of citizens to propose legislation, creation and use of citizen issue groups, etc.

I think that the distinction is rather about consistency and substance. CARE has substance (elaborate and well-defined principles, rhetoric and platform), but almost no consistency. The other factions have far more consistency. The SP might be criticized for lacking substance, because we eschew detail -- but I think that would be unfair. Just because something is simple does not mean it is stupid -- or vapid. In fact, I think that stupid vapidity is far more able to hide in the nooks and crannies of complicated systems than in open, simple systems.

Further, I don't think that highlighting these differences is bullying or flaming. I don't think that pointing out inconsistencies is bullying or flaming. I think that civil discourse must be discourse; and discourse requires that we maintain and applies rules of reason -- and hold ourselves and each other to them. This is why civility is not the same as niceness. Niceness is shallow and vapid -- civility is not.

Beathan

[Bromo Ivory]

[quote="Beathan":3pj2085k]

Further, I don't think that highlighting these differences is bullying or flaming. I don't think that pointing out inconsistencies is bullying or flaming. I think that civil discourse must be discourse; and discourse requires that we maintain and applies rules of reason -- and hold ourselves and each other to them. This is why civility is not the same as niceness. Niceness is shallow and vapid -- civility is not.[/quote:3pj2085k]

Hi Beathan!

While I certainly do not agree with your examples - I understand your point. Though I do not think showing candidates is Nakedness/Foolish/Vulnerable in this case - it is letting voters know what they are likely to get - the pool anyway - which should not make a party look foolish or vulnerable unless they are ashamed of their candidates - and I certainly doubt any of you fall into that camp!

But a point on civility - Civility usually does not involve ad hominem attacks or name calling (and neither does good discussion or debate!). So, yes, I am for reasoned debate - and substantive debate! But I am having a great deal of difficulty trying to figure out how the name calling and personal attacks is somehow civil (though I will agree it isn't Nice for sure).

[Beathan]

Bromo --

Good points. First, as you point out, I am not ashamed of any of my fellow Simpletons. Rather, I leave it as a point of honor and respect to let them speak for themselves -- up to and including their announcements of candidacy.

(I admit that I departed from this rule in putting words in Aliasi's mouth -- but I think that the race for Chancellor is different in kind from RA races. In the executive race, we do vote for individuals.)

Second, I am not sure that it is relevant for the citizens to know who they will get. In fact, given the way RA representatives are selected (by party vote -- limited to the party -- to fill RA seats won), I don't think that anyone voting in the election can know who they will get. Rather, what I think is critical is to tell the citizens what they will get -- not who they will get. We do that through our platforms.

Finally -- I don't think that observations and political analogies are uncivil. It is not uncivil to point out that CARE has a central committee formation (which is, I admit, a great improvement over its initial "Triumvirate" style leadership; Rome, at least, had several generations of Republican freedom before falling victim to Triumvirates -- I hope that Colonia Nova has at least as long). Further , CARE sees CDS government as active and interventionist (sponsoring public projects such as public radio, rather than encouraging private enterprise in these areas). It is also not uncivil to apply Hannah Arendt's analysis of political systems to CARE and observe that, in trying to engage itself deeply with the citizens of the CDS (engaging at each point of the citizen's life rather than intentionally refraining from action in areas conceived of as private), CARE is approaching Arendt's well-accepted description of "totalitarianism." These observations, put in such a way, are not nice -- but they are also important and not uncivil.

Consider the alternatives:

"Candidate X, by trying to be all things to all citizens, is committing himself to a level of government involvement in the lives of the citizens that threatens civil liberties and threatens to engulf and consume private life." -- Fair and Civil political criticism.

"Candidate X is a jumped up Il Duce." Ad hominem attack.

I see a clear disintiction here -- and will confine my ad hominem attacks to inword and email private conversations.

Beathan