The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

I have a new post on my blog commenting on the current political situation in the CDS which is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'. First para reads:

They say the road to hell is paved with good intentions. The CDS is slowly but surely undermining its own democratic traditions. It is now a marginal democracy where election-rigging is permitted. The CDS has fallen so far from its democratic origins that some of the people elected to the Representative Assembly do not believe that the majority have the right to make decisions; they don't believe in democracy itself. It is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'; elections take place but they are rigged in advance to support the incumbents. The opposition (who won the election) are routinely abused, personally attacked and hounded from office. Sound familiar? (This is, of course, nothing compared to the punishment meted out to the opposition in Zimbabwe. I'm drawing an analogy here, I'm saying the CDS is like a 'virtual Zimbabwe' to make a point.)

The post continues here.

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Jon Seattle »

I was just reading the RA transcript on the new 7-members requirement for factions, and remembered the election results spreadsheet:

Image

Note that I mislabeled the column "members" on this spreadsheet, as I noted in the original post, this column shows the number of first place votes for the faction, not faction SL group membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but it looks to me as if both SP and DPU have fewer first place votes than the seven required to run in an election according to the new rules. Of course, I don't know how many citizens each faction had in its group list at the time.

A future campaign of intimidation and / or threats can reduce the membership in a party's SL group -- not because that party is unpopular, but because membership in the faction's group is visible to everyone, and people may fear direct intimidation or the stigma that comes with publicly declaring support in a climate of public attack. This is likely to contribute to greater instability and minority rule.

Its very sad to see the CDS go this way.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Jon

I understand the SC considered this issue yesterday (I was at the meeting) and decided that the four current factions - CSDF, NuCARE, Simplicity and the DPU - each had 7 or more current citizens and were therefore all valid for the elections. ThePrincess said that NuCARE weren't fielding any candidates (and I think someone has said something similar about Simplicity). The DPU do plan to run though.

The 10% rule is particularly short-sighted though. As you point out, if it had been in effect in January the DPU and NuCARE would not have been able to contest the election. I predict they'll have a rethink about this after the election, especially if one or more parties loses members. That way they'll have successfully prevented any new challengers from coming forward to contest the by-election but still be able to run for office in July. I do hope someone posts a transcript from yesterday's SC meeting. The bit where ThePrincess defended raising the bar for faction membership from 3 to 7 to defend smaller factions was a particularly entertaining piece of doublethink!

Honi soit qui mal y pense
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

Jon

I understand the SC considered this issue yesterday (I was at the meeting) and decided that the four current factions - CSDF, NuCARE, Simplicity and the DPU - each had 7 or more current citizens and were therefore all valid for the elections. ThePrincess said that NuCARE weren't fielding any candidates (and I think someone has said something similar about Simplicity). The DPU do plan to run though.

The 10% rule is particularly short-sighted though. As you point out, if it had been in effect in January the DPU and NuCARE would not have been able to contest the election. I predict they'll have a rethink about this after the election, especially if one or more parties loses members. That way they'll have successfully prevented any new challengers from coming forward to contest the by-election but still be able to run for office in July. I do hope someone posts a transcript from yesterday's SC meeting. The bit where ThePrincess defended raising the bar for faction membership from 3 to 7 to defend smaller factions was a particularly entertaining piece of doublethink!

It probably would be a good idea not to cite with such authority numbers that have not been validated in any way and use them to jump to even more authoritative conclusions. As Jon points out in his posting, his spreadsheet under the "members" column shows first place votes, NOT the number of faction members. The SC is using the official faction groups as an indicator of the number of citizens on each roster. Neither you nor Jon have any way to know what the actual roster counts were before the last election. Nor does it matter: each faction was certified by the SC at that time as eligible. As for the future, clearly we still don't have a problem: all four of the parties that participated in the last election have enough members to qualify under the new rules.

As for Prin's comments, you might want to re-read that transcript for context. She defended the rescinding of the "faction elimination" provision of the election law as being protective of small parties, not the 10% rule. And I believe that Jon's own analysis right after the election made that same point, that faction elimination could be harmful to small parties. So I'm not sure how this statement can be in dispute.

But the voting system WITHOUT faction elimination is not perfectly balanced either. Once "faction elimination" is rolled back, the system once again favors small parties, even VERY small parties. TP's concern (clearly stated) is that the system could then be "gamed" by a single large party breaking up and forming a number of small parties, each of which might run a single candidate for the RA. This would allow the former members of that large party (theoretically) to claim not two or maybe 3 seats in the RA, but potentially as many as 5, perhaps more. Since all of our current "small parties" already meet the 10% rule, that proposal is intended (1) to protect existing small parties and (2) to ensure that tiny new parties are not being formed simply to game the system. I don't find that to be either doublethink or any other kind of obfuscation. I may not be as paranoid as TP in thinking that it is LIKELY that CSDF will run out and form many small parties just to game the system, and I am not sure I agree that 10% is the right number to choose for a minimum party size, but on the other hand I certainly can understand her concern, and it is not illogical in any way. And the 10% number certainly does have the virtue of ensuring that any party that runs for the RA will have enough members available to fill as many seats as they win...even if they win all seven. Given the odd situation in the last election where parties won more seats than they had candidates, I can't help but think that this is a good thing. It is certainly NOT a "virtual Zimbabwe."

Cindy

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Cindy

I'm afraid you're trying to defend the indefensible. Just think about this for a moment - would you have supported this if the CSDF had rushed through new election rules just in time for by-election? I very much doubt it. In fact I think all the current supporters of these changes would have been up in arms. The principle is this: you don't change the election rules to fill vacant seats on the legislature so that the new members are elected by different rules to the incumbents, especially when the new rules would have invalidated two of the sitting factions if applied at the general election! It's a clear case of the RA abusing its powers. The RA has rigged the vote to favour the incumbent parties at the expense of the CSDF and any other potential opposition. That's why I called it a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'.

Let's look at what those numbers mean. They are instructive. These were the first place votes, by faction: CSDF-23; NuCARE-12; SP-5; DPU-4. Now, this does not mean that each of the factions had that many members. Jon acknowledged that the label was incorrect in his post. But we can assume that all members of a faction would put their faction first (unless you want to be really contrarian). It's a sensible assumption to make. So we can assume that the CSDF has 23 or fewer members, in fact we have around 12. Same for NuCARE etc. This means that, in the January election, the Simplicity Party and DPU had 5 or fewer and 4 or fewer members respectively. Now, these same factions have changed the rules for this by-election so that the minimum faction size is 7. If we had applied those rules back in January they would not have been able to contest the election. Whatever the motive for this change, this is pulling up the ladder after you have climbed, it is moving the goalposts during the game, it is anything but a 'level playing field'. I can't think of any more analogies to try and drive this home. It is unfair. Any non-partisan observer would surely see that this is not on, whatever the motivation.

Last edited by Patroklus Murakami on Sat Apr 05, 2008 1:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Sonja Strom
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Sonja Strom »

Patroklus, in the last election the DPU had 7 members - certainly not gigantic, but large enough to have met the minimum faction size in order to participate in the election under the new rule changes.

User avatar
Patroklus Murakami
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1929
Joined: Fri Jun 02, 2006 5:54 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Patroklus Murakami »

Sonja Strom wrote:

Patroklus, in the last election the DPU had 7 members - certainly not gigantic, but large enough to have met the minimum faction size in order to participate in the election under the new rule changes.

Well, if you assert that to be true, I'll take your word for it. How then do you explain the fact that your party only got 4 first preferences?

Honi soit qui mal y pense
User avatar
Sonja Strom
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 608
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 12:10 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Sonja Strom »

Hmm, well, could be 3 of our members did not vote at all, or maybe they chose another party as their first choice. :oops:

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

Frankly, I worry about the 10% rule, precisely because the DPU is the most vulnerable to not qualifying to be a real faction in the future. We will have to do a better job of convincing people to join us. So how about it folks? Join the DPU, we're nice people :-).

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Beathan »

I too am concerned by the minimum faction size -- as the SP is also a very vulnerable faction. However, the minimum faction size of 3 is a relic -- and one that could have had bad consequences if a large faction tried the "divide and conquer" amoebic election strategy. I am taking the CSDF at its word that it was not planning to do so -- although methinks Pat protests too much.

I am glad to see Justice running --- and on a platform of substance over process. If Justice had been LRA, it is likely that the procedures we passed this term would not (yet) have been necessary. I would love to see us discuss substantive things -- such as how to best expand our community as quickly as we can do so without sacrificing aesthetics and integrity. Unfortunately, our discussions have been so poor in the last two terms that we needed to fix the process so that we could even reach the substance. (We had no real chance to fix the personalities (including mine, that of the aptly named Princess and that of Pat Mugabe ... err .. Murakami) -- so process was our only option.)

These fixes are not universally popular -- but they are aimed at improving and elevating our discussion (not at maintaining or grabbing personal power). That is, the RA is interested in improving CDS democracy. Part of that means that we must be skeptical of the attempt to lead the CDS into a one-party system. Frankly, the very reforms Pat decries are those leading us away from the road to a Virtual Zimbabwe -- a road he single-handedly put us on.

Beathan

Last edited by Beathan on Sat Apr 05, 2008 10:55 am, edited 1 time in total.
Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Sonja Strom wrote:

Hmm, well, could be 3 of our members did not vote at all, or maybe they chose another party as their first choice. :oops:

I think Sonja's first explanation is most likely: there were many citizens who did not vote at all. I also know at least two people who cast their first vote for a party that they did not "belong" to.

As said, Pat, it's a good idea to be very careful when waving numbers around that one does not make invalid assumptions about what those numbers represent. Doing that is a great way to draw completely illogical conclusions. Please document your assertions about what the numbers represent and convince us all that they are correct rather than using the famous classic logical fallacy of "Appeal to Numbers" to try to stampede the rest of us into agreeing with you that what's happening is somehow completely nefarious and poorly motivated. You can fool some of the people like this some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time...

Cindy

Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

Patroklus Murakami wrote:

Cindy

I'm afraid you're trying to defend the indefensible. Just think about this for a moment - would you have supported this if the CSDF had rushed through new election rules just in time for by-election? I very much doubt it. In fact I think all the current supporters of these changes would have been up in arms. The principle is this: you don't change the election rules to fill vacant seats on the legislature so that the new members are elected by different rules to the incumbents, especially when the new rules would have invalidated two of the sitting factions if applied at the general election! It's a clear case of the RA abusing its powers. The RA has rigged the vote to favour the incumbent parties at the expense of the CSDF and any other potential opposition. That's why I called it a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'.

Well, once again you're overlooking the obvious refutation to your argument. Parties are "certified" by the SC to run in the election. Four parties were certified for this term. The SC stated clearly that they had no intention of certifying any new parties for the by-election -- as it should be. And as Gwyn so aptly pointed out in the SC meeting, all four factions would qualify even if the 10% rule WERE applied right now. Finally, you cannot prove your assertion that two of the factions would not have qualifed under the the new rules had they been in effect in January, and those of us who are paying attention can easily demonstrate that your are incorrect about that assertion in at least one case (see my response to Sonja's posting).

So what, exactly, is the problem with the way the SC ruled on the "10% rule"? Technically, it will not apply to the by-election at all. I see no abuse here, only a change that should in the future encourage formation of factions that truly have a constituency rather than little cliques that have only personalities as their "core values" rather than distinctive platforms. Potentially I think it will improve the balance in our much-maligned voting system, and perhaps make it "good enough" that we will be satisfied to leave it alone for a while and live under those rules to see how things pan out.

Rolling back the "elimination option" is more problematic in my personal opinion, and I think that the SC erred in permitting that rollback to apply to the by-election. If you follow their logic on eligible parties (namely that only parties certified for the original election should be permitted to run in the by-election), then it seems inconsistent to allow the voting rules change to apply to the by-election. The only reason they DID certify in this particular way was because of the way the issues were taken up by the SC: they FIRST took up the rule-change, and then took up the 10% rule. Had they done it in the opposite order, I suspect that they might have decided differently on the rule change. But that's the nature of judicial debate: sequencing of arguments often has an effect on outcome, and good people can differ on how arguments ought to be sequenced. Such is life. But it's certainly not "Zimbabwean."

Incidentally, had the SC ruled NOT to allow that change, I think the by-election still would have been "fair". The way I look at the math, a single party would have to get more than 50% of the first place votes and all of those who voted first for that party would have to use the "elimination option" in order for the party to win both seats. Fair enough, as far as I'm concerned....but the SC's solution will not significantly change that result.

Cindy

Justice Soothsayer
Pundit
Pundit
Posts: 375
Joined: Sun Jun 04, 2006 1:14 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Justice Soothsayer »

Beathan wrote:

I am glad to see Justice running --- and on a platform of substance over process. If Justice had been LRA, it is likely that the procedures we passed this term would not (yet) have been necessary. I would love to see us discuss substantive things -- such as how to best expand our community as quickly as we can do so without sacrificing aesthetics and integrity. Unfortunately, our discussions have been so poor in the last two terms that we needed to fix the process so that we could even reach the substance. (We had no real chance to fix the personalities (including mine, that of the aptly named Princess and that of Pat Mugabe ... err .. Murakami) -- so process was our only option.)

These fixes are not universally popular -- but they are aimed at improving and elevating our discussion (not at maintaining for grabbing personal power). That is, the RA is interested in improving CDS democracy. Part of that means that we must be skeptical of the attempt to lead the CDS into a one-party system. Frankly, the very reforms Pat decries are those leading us away from the road to a Virtual Zimbabwe -- a road he single-handedly put us on.

Beathan, Beathan, Beathan,

Thanks for the backhanded compliment, but I have to note that while you decry the level of debate in the RA you can't resist engaging in sly ad hominem attacks. Pat's 'Virtual Zimbabwe' line is overblown rhetoric, but the daily sniping might make us a virtual soap opera. Maybe we should commission the Guild to build us a Bada Bing!

Flyingroc Chung
Passionate Protagonist
Passionate Protagonist
Posts: 198
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 2:55 pm
Contact:

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Flyingroc Chung »

On the subject of the original post--the CDS has a long history of people bemoaning the CDS being or becoming undemocratic. That our institutions are failing, etc.--some of the oldest record I've found is Dianne's exit critique way back in 2005:

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=79121

Or, if we loosen our requirements, we can point even further back to Gwyns sensationalistic post "News at Eleven: Neualtenburg Government Grinding to a Halt"

http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread.php?t=35937

Back then Gwyn's problem was finding enough people to do the essential work of keeping the project alive. Since then, we have grown. We have faced new problems and retained some of the old problems as well; lots of drama, conspiracy theories, personal spats and so on. But through it all we have survived and, dare I say it, even thrived as a community.

While I find some of the RA's actions worrying, I do not think we are turning into a virtual Zimbabwe. The drahmah is part of the cycle of life in CDS (although you might be shocked to know, it's not as bad as before). In the terms of software development, I like to think of our government as an open source "bazaar" model--we start with *something* even if it is buggy or flawed, then people come and improve it. Sometimes we take a wrong path, but we fix our mistakes as we find them. So despite the warts of our system, I remain optimistic that our democracy will continue to thrive.

Beathan
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1364
Joined: Sun Oct 29, 2006 3:42 pm

Re: The CDS is turning into a 'Virtual Zimbabwe'

Post by Beathan »

Justice --

I know that my endorsement of you might be the kiss of death -- but I don't see how my compliment is "backhanded." Rather, I compliment you and slug Pat in the same sentence. Nothing backhanded about it.

Also, I think Pat is on to something when speaking of a "Virtual Zimbabwe." The problem is, like Hillary Clinton's, Pat's rhetoric casts stark light on his own defects as a leader -- defects that in large part caused the sorry state in which we find ourselves. Pat is a gifted idealogue and a talented legislator, but his gifts are ill-suited to institutional leadership of a multi-partisan body. In other words, he is a lot like me.

Also, I think we are beyond sniping and have reached the full bare-knuckle brawl stage. I acknowledge and applaud the calls for us to, at least, return to Queensbury's rules -- but there is a lot of slugging left to do. We are fighting about things that matter -- issues of substance and critical process which do no less than define who we are as a community.

Also, for the record, given my prickly personality, I need to clarify the following (in my backhanded complimentary way): I like and respect Justice, and nothing will change that; I like and respect Jon Seattle (even though he does not like me much at the moment), and nothing will change that; I like and respect Moon, who is a gem of a person and a true asset to our community; in fact, including Pat, there is no one in our community who I think is dangerous, power-hungry, or fundamentally unpleasant (for a change). However, I think that we have serious disputes about who we are and where we are going -- and some of us are personally invested in their own ideas and principles to an unhealthy extent. It is important to have principles -- and to stand on them and to try to further them -- but we all need to maintain a healthy separation between our principles and personality.

The problem is that we are a civil community. As such, we contain multitudes. We are many things to many different people. In fact, we are contradictory things. This makes some people uncomfortable, leading them to call for us to figure out who we are to root out the contradictions. I disagree. I think that the contradictions prove that we have succeeded in creating a true civil community. Civil communities are paradoxical -- we should bask in, rather than worry about, the paradox -- and ride this project wherever it takes us. Not all who wander are lost.

Beathan

Let's keep things simple enough to be fair, substantive enough to be effective, and insightful enough to be good.
Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”