Electoral Reform Bill

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 7:33 am

[quote="Claude Desmoulins":wznlycs0]Is the only substantive change here that all voters would rank the individuals in the faction which they rank first?[/quote:wznlycs0]
Yes, and it allows for a last place vote for more then 1 faction.

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:08 am

[quote="Dnate Mars":3m37ymri]... it allows for a last place vote for more then 1 faction.[/quote:3m37ymri]

If thats the case, then why not ditch the Borda count system altogether?

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 9:55 am

The question would then be....for what? I think a weakness of STV, even if done between factions, is that it places more emphasis on first place rankings than Borda, which considers all rankings in the first calculation. I saw an interesting voting comparison here:

http://bcn.boulder.co.us/government/app ... tvote.html

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sat Sep 08, 2007 11:59 am

Claude --

Very interesting study. I was inclined to favor STV -- but now I am not sure. I think that a system that emphasizes first place votes has the danger of creating an increasingly polarized and splintered government in the CDS. The parties that tend to receive the greatest number of first place votes are the very parties that do not work or play well with the other. The more moderate and flexible parties have tended to be rewarded with second and third place votes. That is -- we have a polarized electorate. Our voters tend to divide into at least two camps, each represented by rival parties that strongly represent their own constituencies, but which consider compromise or bridge-building to be a betrayal of core values. If the entire electorate shared the core values of either party, we would have a strong an legitimate one-party dominated system. However, because there are real and legitimate disagreements among the electorate as to core values, we end up with a bipolar system. To the extent our fractured society works, it works because we are blessed with parties that bridge the gaps the ideological parties refuse to bridge. We lose this essential benefit if we lose the mechanism through which we empower the moderate, compromise parties.

Beathan

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 2:57 am

Thanks for posting the link Claude. That's a really interesting study.

All electoral systems are compromises between different sets of principles. Dnate's proposal is a good compromise between those of us who want more voter choice (through STV) and those who want to preserve the platform-based electoral system we currently have. It's an incremental reform that gives voters more choice than they currently have. It would resolve the problem (highlighted by, I think, Aliasi and others) that voters have to join a faction if they wish to exercise their choice between the candidates of that faction in an election. Giving this choice to those who put the faction first is a step forward for voter choice. Similarly, the right not not rank all the factions is a welcome development. Some people complained that they had to rank all the parties in the last election. Thanks to FRs clarification we know that the last place faction gets no votes but what if voters only want to give their support to one out of three, or two out of four parties? Dnate's proposal would allow voters to exercise their choice and only give their vote to parties they actively approve of. This is another step forward.

The only difference for voters would be:
1. They get to choose among candidates for their first choice of faction.
2. They get to choose whether to put other parties second, third etc or not.
The election result would be worked out in pretty much the same way as it is now.

It's quite an elegant, and simple , compromise step.

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 7:49 am

Incremental change? Elegant, simple, compromise step??? LOOOL!!! More like yet another attempt to change nothing and claim you've done something significant.. Typical..... Democracy, participation and freedom of choice are the losers here... Thanks for the vision and leadership.... How many more good people do we need to lose before you realise what a disaster the current system is? But I forget... As long as the oligarchs are happy, who cares about the rest..... What a sham...

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:12 am

Pat -

In this case, I see a move away from the Borda system with no real benefits accrued. Sure it is a simple thing, but there are lots of simple things in life that aren't particularly effective.

I don't think it is elegant, though, unless you count the fact that it is a pretty good illusion of change - iun that it could be pretty elegant!

(i.e. I am not convinced this makes the representatives accountable to the people in any sort of meaningful way)

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:28 am

[quote="michelmanen":1z1h8rid]Incremental change? Elegant, simple, compromise step??? LOOOL!!! More like yet another attempt to change nothing and claim you've done something significant.. Typical..... Democracy, participation and freedom of choice are the losers here... Thanks for the vision and leadership.... How many more good people do we need to lose before you realise what a disaster the current system is? But I forget... As long as the oligarchs are happy, who cares about the rest..... What a sham...[/quote:1z1h8rid]

Ouch. As the one that came up with this idea, I thought it was a good idea. Going to a STV, I thought, would make the extremes too powerful. The parties in the middle would lose their voice. Honestly, I thought is was a simple compromise between what most people wanted. What I see it doing is freeing the people that don't want to be beholden to a party the freedom to vote for who they want. I fail to see how this hurts anything that you have stated. It allows more people to be involved in the section of who is placed on the RA, it allows people to pick whoever they want, along with picking who they [i:1z1h8rid]don't[/i:1z1h8rid] want, and it ensures that parties will be forced to compromise to get things done.

Dnate Mars · Post by **Dnate Mars** » Sun Sep 09, 2007 8:38 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":3at91u1y][quote="Dnate Mars":3at91u1y]... it allows for a last place vote for more then 1 faction.[/quote:3at91u1y]

If thats the case, then why not ditch the Borda count system altogether?[/quote:3at91u1y]

If you want the honest truth, I thought about this one for a very long time. It came down to what I saw as the fairest way that people could have their voices heard, but not force them to support a party that they don't like. Let's just say that since I am a member of the DPU, I am going to of course rank them first. Second, I may want to vote for the SP. But I may hate both CARE and CSDF equally as much, but under the current system I would have to vote for one of them. How is that fair to me?

As for keeping the Borda count system, I think it will allow greater compromise in the system to really get changes done. I don't like the idea of directly voting for candidates, it makes it too personal. I am a recovering RL political junkie, and the one thing that has really turned me off to it is the personal attacks, no one talks about policy any more.

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:30 pm

Dnate's proposal was passed by the Representative Assembly. The votes were Ayes - Ash, Livingston, Murakami, Seattle, Vale; Nays - Ivory, Parisi

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 12:12 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":lbodmkos]Dnate's proposal was passed by the Representative Assembly. The votes were Ayes - Ash, Livingston, Murakami, Seattle, Vale; Nays - Ivory, Parisi[/quote:lbodmkos]
So to summarise the effective changes in the electoral system for the benefit of those citizens, who do not wade through discussion threads and legislative documents, what has changed boils down to this?
[quote="Patroklus Murakami":lbodmkos]The only difference for voters would be:
1. They get to choose among candidates for their first choice of faction.
2. They get to choose whether to put other parties second, third etc or not.
The election result would be worked out in pretty much the same way as it is now. [/quote:lbodmkos]
Did the RA on the same occasion make any decision about how to bring about the implementation of these changes in our technical voting infrastructure?

Also, would this change be considered of sufficient significance to merit communication directly to citizens about the change and how it is going to impact them come the next election?

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 3:28 am

Such a terrible mess..... we dont have anything now that makes sense in even the remotest way.....choosing some candidates but not others, ranking some parties but not others, Borda counting without Borda distribution..... what a disaster!

Bromo Ivory · Post by **Bromo Ivory** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:02 am

It is a bit of a mess isn't it?

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:15 am

Diderot - Thank you for posting the summary of the effects of the reform for the benefit of those who don't want to trawl through the whole debate. I've taken to posting the results of RA votes on proposed legislation in the appropriate thread so people who've been following it know what's happened without having to trawl through the RA transcripts on the wiki. It would be more helpful to copy the legislation passed as well so I'll do that in future.

On your questions - we will need to make changes to FRs election system to take account of the new choices this reform gives to voters. We'll need to contact FR to give him as much notice as possible but, given that the next elections aren't until December, we should have sufficient time to implement this. I agree that we should communicate the reforms to citizens now, and also issue reminders when we're closer to an election, perhaps at the same time as we issue our 'Elections 101' guide. I'll take both of those issues forward so this happens though it may be down to the other branches to ensure implementation and communication takes place.

Michel - I don't see how this extension of voter choice constitutes a 'disaster'. The new electoral system is virtually identical to the old one except that voters have more choice. Anyone used to the previous system will notice few differences. These will be that everyone will automatically have the right to rank candidates of the faction they put first; previously this privilege was only open to members of the faction. Secondly, voters will be able to choose whether to rank all of the parties or only some of them; this means that no one is forced to give support to a party they don't want to support.

Perhaps you were referring to the policies of your CARE faction? These are clearly a 'terrible mess' as you claim to be in favour of "a simpler, more transparent, more accountable and more democratic system of voting " but your representatives have just voted against this moderate reform which puts more power in the hands of voters while preserving the best features of our current electoral system!

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Thu Sep 20, 2007 5:18 am

[quote="Bromo Ivory":1fbk0jas]It is a bit of a mess isn't it?[/quote:1fbk0jas]LOL!