Proposed Amendment

[Bromo Ivory]

This is misleading and highly tendentious account of events. Rather than trying to fan the flames by spreading further rumours about the CSDF (we resigned as part of a plot to take over? hello?) why don't you focus on the issues Sonja is raising about the advantages of our current system and try to forge a consensus on a way forward?

Pat -

The point I was trying to make is that the flames of paranoia are fanning themselves - I did not make the rumors up I heard them from others in the CDS. I think it is ridiculous (as I thought I pointed out) that the CSDF is plotting anything of the sort - I emphasized my last sentence and repeat it here:

[...] only point being that the mistrust continues, not that CSDF would actually do this) [...]

So, I doubly apologize for using an example when everyone is feeling tender on this subject. I apologize again and have withdrawn my comment in the main post.

[Bromo Ivory]

Having said that, I think the real problem with our system is not the Borda score, but the Sainte-Laguë method, which makes the number of parties that support a particular proposition far more important than the number of people represented by those parties. You got it: the only way to balance three smaller right-wing parties is to have a greater number of left wing parties, and so on. Really it is one of the craziest aspects of an electoral system I have seen. As long as we keep it, the Borda points earned by each faction earns won't matter much in the outcome.

Yeah, I was coming to a realization along those lines just now ... and you crystallized it perfectly.

Would this mean that:

IF
1. The number of RA seats is n
2. The number of parties is m

When m approaches n then the seats will tend to be distributed to the # of parties rather than the proportion of votes?

Out current "barrier" to doing this is that we require 3 people to form a faction. The only way to bolster this would be require a larger number to actually run in order for a faction to be able to seat RA members, which I am sure would not be popular.

[Beathan]

Bromo -- I think that this is unfair to the CSDF and to the SP. [...]

Fair enough - I meant no offense or to impune anyone's integrity. I will therefore withdraw my commentary and remain silent on this particular issue. I am sorry.

Bromo --

Don't let me shut you up. I mean -- if people shut up just because I took issue with something they said, we would soon live in a world with sepulchral silence. That would be -- disturbing -- and not much fun.

Beathan

[Sonja Strom]

Thank you to everyone who has contributed information and views on this subject.

I would like to make it clear that I am not immoveable in my view. In fact, much of the reason why I stated my view on this Amendment was to bring it up for discussion.

The posts by others here after my entry have caused me to rethink my position. Although in honesty I still do not feel strongly about returning to the former method of voting, I will support doing that if it is better for our community.

[Jamie Palisades]

FYI, please note that the RA acted on this item on 24 March, enacting a constitutional amendment, and that the SC has announced that it plans to meet regarding this amendment on 31 March. Regards JP