Electoral Reform Bill

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 11:52 am

I don't like it. I think having the ranking of factions is a much better way of doing it then trying to have people running with a faction as part of it. You are then putting people ahead of the party, so if the person resigns, then the voters really aren't getting who they elected, they are getting someone who may or may not follow exactly the way they thought it would.

I like the faction party voting system we currently have. I will have to ask the people that support changing it, why do we need to change it?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 12:55 pm

In brief: it gives way too much power to factions and not enough choice to citizens - especially the great majority not belonging to any political party.

Under the STV system, citizens will be able to rank candidates directly, based on their party affiliation, their individual qualities or (most likely) a combination of both. If a vancany in the RA occurs, the candidate with the next-highest vote count takes his place.

Compare that with the latest such vacancy in the RA: Moon ran as a CSDF candidate. It is safe to assume that quite a number of votes the CSDF got was because her name was on the list. Before being sworn in, she resigned to run for Chancellor. Leon Ash, a recent CSDF member whose name did not figure on the election ballot, was chosen by the 8 CSDF members to replace Moon in the RA (since the CSDF only ran 3 candidates for 7 seats). Leon was sworn in and is now an RA member. The democratic deficit here is glaringly obvious.

The STV is not perfect. To avoid beauty contests, CARE is more than willing to support the idea that each RA candidate be member of a political party with at least 3 active members (in fact our original bill did so before it was attacked as limiting freedom of choice and not allowing independents to run).

There must be a way to avoid sheer "beauty pageants" without falling back into "faction rule". That's exactly what this debate is meant to explore.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:11 pm

[quote="michelmanen":2cxkxnx2]If a vancany in the RA occurs, the candidate with the next-highest vote count takes his place.[/quote:2cxkxnx2]Michel's account of the virtues of STV is largely accurate, but I take issue with this idea. Under the STV proposal we are putting forward a vacancy would not be filled by the next person in the list but by the next person from the same faction in the list. So, if a CSDF member resigns they are replaced with another CSDF member. If a DPU resigns they are replaced with another DPU member and so on.

The problem with Michel's proposition is that the candidate with the next-highest vote may well be from another party. If that system were implemented the political make-up of the RA would alter every time a member resigned.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 1:23 pm

.. and in this way diminish faction rule, bring about accountable government, increase the voice and vote of every citizen and more accurately reflect the collective wish of the CDS electorate as a whole. Guilty as charged!

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 2:51 pm

[quote="michelmanen":14nxnyht].. and in this way diminish faction rule, bring about accountable government, increase the voice and vote of every citizen and more accurately reflect the collective wish of the CDS electorate as a whole. Guilty as charged! [/quote:14nxnyht]

I disagree, I think the factions give more power to people. I know that there are many people out there that don't have the time to write their own platform, but fully support another. I think the factions are a better way to run the government. It is a lot harder to know where everyone stands in an election than it is to just know where a few parties stand. People that are better known is SL will get the votes, based not on what they will do, but the fact that they are known. People that have more time to get their name out will do better than those that are quieter but may work more behind the scenes. I don't like the fact that it will become a popularity contest. People could dislike a person in a party personally, but believe in what the party stands for. They would be much more likely to vote for the party they like even if they don't like a person or 2 in the party.

Also, if a party places more people on the ballet, that party will have a better chance of getting seats on the RA. If let's say CARE places 15 people on the ballet and the rest of the parties place 15 people combined, it is much more likely that CARE will have more people on the RA just because of the numbers. I don't think it will bring accountability to the RA, it will just make for a dirty campaign.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 3:28 pm

[quote="Dnate Mars":1bw69utb]Also, if a party places more people on the ballet, that party will have a better chance of getting seats on the RA. If let's say CARE places 15 people on the ballet and the rest of the parties place 15 people combined, it is much more likely that CARE will have more people on the RA just because of the numbers. I don't think it will bring accountability to the RA, it will just make for a dirty campaign.[/quote:1bw69utb]STV doesn't work this way. There's no benefit to standing more candidates in an election. If anything it would make it less likely for a party that did this to get elected because of the way STV works. If a party stands too many candidates and their vote is split between all the candidates, they risk all of their candidates being eliminated before any of the transfers from eliminated candidates add up to a sufficient vote to elect one of them. It's far more effective under STV to stand as many candidates as you think you have a chance of winning than to stand a massive number you have no chance of electing.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 4:07 pm

Instead of the STV, why not just keep the current system where you rank the factions first and then you get to rank the first place faction that you voted for candidates? It would make things a lot simpler. Keeps the best of both worlds. Also, why do we force people to rank all the factions? If we only want to rank some of them we could. The voting count would be the same if they were all ranked. So if you only vote for 1 faction they get the first place votes but the rest get none.

Brian Livingston · Post by **Brian Livingston** » Fri Aug 10, 2007 8:33 pm

To be honest, I have yet to be sold on the idea that we need a radical overhaul of our electoral system. Our current method was chosen deliberately to eliminate the personality-based election and instead focus on what truly matters, the issues. By moving to STV, I see out elections becoming messier, more divisive, unnecessarily complicated, and less likely to require consensus-building to produce the best legislation for our community. As it stands now, I cannot support this legislation, both for reasons of personal conviction as well as the spirit of the Simplicity Party.

--BL

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 12:39 am

The advantage of STV, as opposed to the modifications to our current system suggested by Dnate and Brian, is that it allows voters much more choice. Under STV, voters can mix and match from across the factions if they choose to. I imagine that there are many voters who are not fiercely attached to a particular faction and who would like to vote for the candidates they think would do a good job from two or more factions. Why shouldn't they have the right to express their vote they way they choose and rank all the candidates (or only some of them) in their order of preference?

I accept that this undermines our faction-based, platform-based elections to some extent. And I agree that these are good features of our current system in that elections are largely about issues rather than personalities. But the CSDF proposal retains the requirement that candidates be put forward by factions and that factions produce a platform for the election. The character of the individual candidates would become more prominent under this reform. That will be a deal-breaker for some but any electoral system is a compromise which satisfies some demands and not others. Your response to this proposal will depend on how highly you score voter choice against the strength of factions and platform v. personality politics.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:01 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":3fzox735]
... And I agree that these are good features of our current system in that elections are largely about issues rather than personalities. ... [/quote:3fzox735]

My experience in the last election was that we claim this, but in practice it is NOT true. A functioning democracy requires intellectual honesty by its leaders - and I think it is intellectually honest to recognize that it is not as insulated as we like to whisper to ourselves.

Faction based voting means that the party gets to select the representative - and not the voter. What does the voter do then? Well, personality politics actually can INCREASE - since a faction can canvass someone saying that if their opponent is elected that someone they don't like is bound to sit on the RA. And indeed, that did happen.

So ... please don't think this system is working.

All we have done is make sure the voter has lost control over their specific representatives - thinking it will be about issues therefore. But with the campaign last time, I found out that it was MADE about personalities in private canvassing.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 6:16 am

Another thread where you make the same allegation Bromo. Any evidence you'd care to share?

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 8:54 am

As it stands, it is [i:3rnujfn6]more[/i:3rnujfn6] about the issues than it is personal. I won't say that there was no personal attacks, but it was mostly issues.

Brian Livingston · Post by **Brian Livingston** » Sat Aug 11, 2007 10:29 pm

This proposal will almost certianly result in future elections being largely personality based and minimally issues-based. In an effort to get elected, candidates will be under increasing pressure to compromise on their convictions so as to appeal to the widest constituency. Under our current system, when you vote for a faction, you are supporting their vision for the CDS. Of course there are going to be jabs and some mud slung amongst candidates, it is human nature, especially when we are granted the privledge of distance and the non-instantaneous communication of the forums. However, when you vote, you are still voting for a faction and for its platform. The members of the faction, given that they are invested in their platform, choose those who they feel will best represent the ideals of their faction and its platform. By switching to this new system, this balance will be shattered and we will simply be voting for personalities - who can shake the most hands and kiss the most babies.

In the end, this is going to come down to whether you feel that whether our elections should focused more on the issues or the people. Our founders intended for these elections to be centered on issues. I agree with this tradition and do not support this radical overhaul of our electoral system, an overhaul which will only serve to lower the level of debate, not raise it.

--BL

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Wed Sep 05, 2007 3:11 pm

Here is my bill:

Article I, Section 2 - The Representative Assembly Body

Representative seats are chosen by means of the Sainte-LaguÃ«? method using scores generated by Borda-count ranked votes cast by citizens. There will also be the option to not rank a faction; this will act the same way as a last place vote in the Borda count. The citizens will also rank the list of candidates from their first pick faction to serve on the RA.

The number of representative seats in the RA is equal to the odd whole number nearest to 10% of the population, rounded down, with a minimum of five seats and a maximum of forty seats.

Each faction controls their seats and may replace members or fill seats due to vacancies as they see fit. Each seat receives a single vote.

The Representative Assembly shall serve for a term of six months. New RAs shall take office on 1 February and 1 August. Elections shall be held over a 168 hour period beginning at noon SLT on the Saturday before the 16th of the month prior to the new RAs taking office. In the event of a server outage which prevents citizens from casting ballots and which lasts more than 12 hours, the Dean of the SC has the authority to adjust or extend the election schedule.

Article IV, Section 2 - The Faction Body

All faction members must be citizens of the Confederation of the Democratic Simulators and must join a special SL group created for the sole purpose of running for seats in the RA. No citizen is required to be part of a faction and cannot be a member of more than one faction at the same time.

The minimum faction size is equal to three. No later than 15 days prior to the opening of the polls, faction members will report to the SC Dean their willingness or unwillingness to serve in the RA. If there are no declared candidates fifteen (15) days before and election, that faction will be considered a non-election faction and not be placed on the ballot for that term. Based on the ranking form the general election, the faction members to be elected to the RA will selected based on the descending order of the number of points received based on the Borda-count of the rankings. The members will be selected until all available seats for the party are filled. If a member retires from the RA, a member with the next highest ranking in the same faction is takes a seat on the RA.

In the event that a faction, via resignation or impeachment, exhausts its list of eligible RA members drawn up at the previous general election during the course of an RA term:

1) If the faction no longer meets the constitutional requirements or if no members of the faction are willing to serve, there shall be a special election to fill, for the remainder of the term, the seats left vacant.

2) If the faction the list of which is exhausted still meets constitutional requirements as spelled out in Article V and there are members of that faction, who did not stand in the previous general election, willing to fill the vacated seats, members of the affected faction shall rank those candidates to fill the vacated seats as they do in the general election.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 6:41 am

Is the only substantive change here that all voters would rank the individuals in the faction which they rank first?