19 January 2008 RA Election Results

[Beathan]

Bromo, Rose and Cindy --

Your points are well made, except one, which I will highlight.

The CDS election process works on a theory that ideas (platforms, party agendas) are what matter -- and personalities matter only insofar as those ideas are put in place by people. The goal is to take the personality conflicts and personality cults out of the equation. This is probably based on European, rather than American, experience -- as Americans love personal politics. However, I think the theory is a sound one.

The critical aspect of this theory is that citizens vote for parties -- and party-members then choose, from their ranks, the person they feel is best able to carry out the policy goals. This is very much like the caucus process (assuming caucuses are sparsely attended by the party apparatchiks, which is my experience of American caucuses) or the notorious "super-delegates" who are allocated to candidates without any direct voter control. Thus, it is not a concern that the SP only had one official candidate -- we had an official platform, and now we get to choose a second person from our ranks to represent that platform. The greater concern is the matter of ties in preference -- such as NuCARE had. This is troubling -- and it does indicate that there is not a good consensus on which people are best able to carry out the Party's goals. However, I think that this is an artifact of small numbers of voters -- and will become increasingly unlikely as our population increases.

As an American, I do consider personality as a critical factor in elections. (That is why I am supporting Obama and dreading the possibility of a Hillary Clinton candidacy.) However, I like the concept of putting ideas over people -- and I think it purifies and clarifies politics by forcing the voters to focus on the things that really matter (the policies that would be pursued by the elected government).

Beathan

[Aliasi Stonebender]

Quite so, Beathan. I've been in the CDS since very close to the beginning. Saying the election system doesn't work like you're used to profoundly misses the point; it's SUPPOSED to gather a wide variety of viewpoints and encourage coalition government, not a roughshod one-party rule. In that regard, the last election is working fully as intended.

[Sonja Strom]

I would like to thank everyone who supported the DPU in this election; and also everyone who voted in the election in general, for their participation. Especially I would like to thank Jon Seattle very much for putting so much work into creating a newly organised voting system!!!

Logistically I think this system worked very well.

With regard to voters being able to eliminate parties from their ballots, I have mixed feelings about that. The reservations raised in this thread are significant. My biggest concern about it is that in the future citizens might perceive their vote as having less value as others’ votes unless they, also, eliminate parties from the ballot that are other than their main choice. This is because such elimination concentrates the value of their vote toward an individual party in the Borda counting system. Such a perception in the community could eventually result in a win-or-lose, two-party system in the CDS. That might even be a direction that is wanted by some citizens, but it would be a fundamental change from the multi-party system we have had up to now.

At the same time, it is interesting to look at the actual results from this election. They show that the party whose supporters eliminated the most other parties from their ballots did not gain any more seats than it had before. So, I am not sure how much of a difference this actually made in the outcome.

Also, it seems possible that many voters could take notice of such tactics, and bring this into consideration when making a determination of which party they would most like to support. This is not to say how any one voter would interpret a party’s use of the tactic - - some people might respect the party for it more, and some less. This is to say that an evaluation of whether or not the ballots should allow elimination of parties from the rankings should include the possibility that a tactic of organised elimination of other parties could possibly work against a party as much as for it.

[Jon Seattle]

Thanks much! I cannot say much about the actual election until the new RA session begins, but I will say this. The particular tactic did not make a difference in the final seat allocation. We were very lucky this time. It may well make a difference in the future.

[Bromo Ivory]

I agree, Jon. While I do not believe it was a carefully planned tactic this election - the potential widespread use of this it was the main reason I voted against the change in the last RA. I thought this modification would allow things to get much more polarized than they are currently which I believe does not serve the CDS. My fear is that through the incentive we have placed in the faction hands ("Prisoner's dilemma" game theory anyone?), the constituency of the faction was almost the entire CDS - now it has the possibility of being only the first voters which is a loss to the community.

Also, I do find it curious that most of the RA was quick to pass the law, and then denounce and accuse evidence of its being used in the very next election. Could it be that there is a hint of regret?

(Also, last time, I do believe the RA seats went along the lines of first votes - the only difference is that due to Borda distributions, the actual constituency of the factions was more widespread than first voters - which is an important note. If you pass things too polarizing, you will hurt the non first rankings, and then lose some relative mandate and power in the next term.)

[Jon Seattle]

I am unable to speak now about how it was used in this election, except to say your characterization is incorrect. Lets hold off on discussing this until everyone knows the facts. Thanks.

[Bromo Ivory]

I am unable to speak now about how it was used in this election, except to say your characterization is incorrect. Lets hold off on discussing this until everyone knows the facts. Thanks.

No problem - but I was just responding to your post. I do not have any special knowledge of what went on in the election the way you do. It might be good to maintain radio silence on this and not use unknown proprietary knowledge to shut down discussion. I will wait and am genuinely curious as to your analysis, though, because I am sure it will be thoughtful.

[Cindy Ecksol]

With regard to voters being able to eliminate parties from their ballots, I have mixed feelings about that. The reservations raised in this thread are significant. My biggest concern about it is that in the future citizens might perceive their vote as having less value as others’ votes unless they, also, eliminate parties from the ballot that are other than their main choice. This is because such elimination concentrates the value of their vote toward an individual party in the Borda counting system. Such a perception in the community could eventually result in a win-or-lose, two-party system in the CDS. That might even be a direction that is wanted by some citizens, but it would be a fundamental change from the multi-party system we have had up to now.

Well, yes, there IS that possibility. But the system as it stands today also offers the most flexibility for those who favor just two parties (or any number of parties less than N-1) or who feel that certain parties would be an impediment to good governance and do not wish to support them at all. Yes, some citizens will have a particular agenda and "bullet vote" for the single party that they feel best supports that agenda. But many more will be interested in seeing candidates from more than one party in the RA and will tailor their votes accordingly.

I was not eligible to vote this time around, but had I been voting, I would have ranked two parties, not just one, because I had a particular interest in certain candidates. Jon's analysis highlights the fact that I am certainly not alone in having a desire to execute this particular strategy. Rescinding the "faction elimination" rule would not allow voters to do this -- in the case I outline above, I would have been forced to give a point to a third faction even if I had no interest at all in their policies or candidates. Certainly such coercion is not particularly "democratic" and I would say that allowing elimination of parties one is uninterested in supporting while prioritizing support for factions one DOES support improves the "democracy quotient" of the process while encouraging the development of cross-faction coalitions in the resulting RA.

Those who were selected for the RA would be well advised to take a really close look at the results Jon posted since they give some fascinating insight into where the "natural coalitions" might be....or not. And any faction that would like to get something done in the new RA is going to have to figure out a way to make common cause with at least one other faction. I'm looking forward to watching all this shake out and hoping that the process of developing coalitions will result in some interesting and creative solutions to some of the challenges faced by the CDS in the next term.

Cindy
<remembering Winston Churchill's adage: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried.">

[Sonja Strom]

... Certainly such coercion is not particularly "democratic" and I would say that allowing elimination of parties one is uninterested in supporting while prioritizing support for factions one DOES support improves the "democracy quotient" of the process while encouraging the development of cross-faction coalitions in the resulting RA.

One thing I agree with there - and that has been brought up by others in this thread already - is to remain oriented toward how best to represent the wishes of the citizens.

Perhaps that a voter can choose which parties receive what share of their vote is an important element of their determination.

[Beathan]

As a member of the Simplicity Party (the Party most charitable with allocating votes -- with the fewest "elimination votes") and as a member of the RA who supported and helped pass this vote elimination rule, I think that the rule is a good one, even if I do not plan to use it myself when voting. (I said as much when I voted for the rule -- and I reiterate that position now.)

I think that the traditional borda count system does not "coerce" support of a faction that a person does not support. I personally consider both 3rd and 4th place votes to be "votes against". However, such voting allows weighing of the "lesser of two evils." Just as all good things are not equally good; all bad things are not equally bad. I believe that being able to rank all the parties gives me much greater flexibility and say in the outcome of the election than any form of "up/down" voting would do.

That said, I also see the possibility that a voter would see two parties as equally unacceptable. This is far more likely than a person seeing two parties as equally worthy of support. Sometimes, a person has a litmus test for their support. They categorically oppose any party or person who takes a particular position -- seeing all such people as being equally bad. The faction elimination rule adds flexibility to our electoral system, allowing such voters to express this categorical rejection of a position shared by multiple parties.

However, I think that such an elimination should be exercised very carefully. A single issue voter is sacrificing their voice on other issues for the opportunity to shout loudly on one issue. While I can understand why a person would do this -- I never would do so myself. There are too many important issues to limit myself to just one. Thus, even with faction elimination, I think that each voter receives a real benefit in ignoring that possibility and ranking all factions.

That said, I also see that there is an electoral advantage to be gained by a Party if its members eliminate two or more of the the other parties. As the votes are pooled -- a vote for any other party dilutes the total support the voter's party recieves. This harms the party -- even if, for the reasons set forth above, is maximizes the influence and effectiveness of the individual voter.

This is one of the areas, which naturally arise in a democracy, where the interests of the individual conflict with the interests of the group. However, the current compromise allows each of us, for our own reasons, to reconcile this conflict as we see fit -- and it does so through a simple and straight-forward process. For these reasons, I supported and continue to support to faction elimination option.

I can assure the CDS that the SP, which has the stated goal of protecting and enhancing the rights and powers of individuals in the CDS, will never engage in electoral partisan gamesmanship (such as manipulation of the faction elimination rule) and will continue to be the most charitable of parties in terms of its members voting in support of other parties. We will also continue to propose and support policies that enhance the power of each of us to make decisions, through participation in our democracy, in our own way and for our own reasons. Thus, while the Simplicity Party, perhaps more than any other Party, supports individual rights -- we recognize that one of those rights is the right of an individual to put group or factional interests above their own interests.

This position might doom the SP to a permanent position of being a support party -- the position it has maintained in all past elections in which we have participated. However, I hope that will not be the case. Over this next term, Brian and I will try to publicize and more clearly define our Party and our Party's policies and program. We will try to prove to the CDS citizens that, although we are a coalition partner par excellence, we are also a party worth joining and supporting as a citizen's party-of-choice.

Beathan Vale