Election of the LRA and direct election of the Chancellor

[Jon Seattle]

LRA Election

The only legitimate power in a republic lies with it's citizens. The RA is only as good (or as bad) as it reflects their choices. If there are more citizens that support a faction they should end up with greater representation in the RA. Our system is broken in this regard, because if tends to give close to equal numbers of votes to each faction, which effectively makes the number of factions that belong to a given coalition more important than the citizen's votes. Giving the LRA to the faction with the largest number of votes was an attempt to fix the problem, and I agree it was not a good solution, but with the current system in place it was what we had.

My guess is that the CDS will have a very hard time addressing the problem of unequal representation, but if we take our claim to be a democratic republic seriously, it is a problem we will eventually have to solve. If the RA elects the LRA and we do not address this issue, it will take us even further away from having meaningful elections. So, personally, I would much prefer the internal election of the LRA, but only if it comes with equal representation.

Chancellor Election

My issue with directly electing a Chancellor has nothing to do with the election per se, but with how this is likely to change the role of the Chancellor. Right now doing a good job as Chancellor is difficult -- it means leading an all-volunteer team working with virtually no budget to actually run the CDS. Basically our Chancellor is our chief volunteer coordinator.

Direct election will make the Chancellor more of a political officer and less a volunteer coordinator. Past proposals making this change envisioned a Chancellor who has a role in drafting legislation and using a veto to shape its passage. Something closer to the role of the US President. My guess is that if the Chancellor is directly elected, this change will be inevitable. Directly elected Chancellors, like the President of the US today, will praised or blamed for things that depend on legislation.

Unlike the US government, our executive does not have a budget for payroll at RL rates, nor a cabinet. So far our Chancellors have barely been able to keep up with the demanding managerial role and still have some time for RL. A shift to more of a legislator-and-chief would either leave the everyday tasks wanting or will require that we increase the staff and resources available. I could imagine at least a chief of staff (and more staff) to make sure the managerial work could continue. I can't tell if this is a good or bad thing, but it seems to me that a larger, (perhaps much larger) executive branch will be needed if the amendment is passed.

Second, an elected Chancellor would centralize more power in the hands of one party and one person. I have not yet released the numbers from the by-election, but consider the last full election. CSDF had an absolute majority of first ranked votes (not just the largest number, and most of those from un-factioned voters). A CSDF candidate might have won. Given a strongly political role for the Chancellor, imagine the problems that might have been caused if other factions objected. There are some functions that should be carried out without always being a subject for political debate. The current Chancellor position, with a less political role, can keep things running and the lights on without that overhead.

[Justice Soothsayer]

Jon has raised an interesting point about our political dynamics. I'm not a math major (nor do I play one one TV), but I think that Jon's suggestion that our system is "broken... because if tends to give close to equal numbers of votes to each faction" is more a function of the small number of voters who spread their votes across 4 factions. I suspect a larger electorate would tend to gravitate towards two poles, maybe with smaller parties playing more of a compromise role.

As to electing a Chancellor, ThePrincess has noted that the Chancellor election would be non-partisan (that is, one who is not a member of a faction is eligible), but I would suggest that the same is true of a Chancellor elected by the RA. Indeed, a candidate who is not identified with a particular faction might be an ideal compromise candidate, either in a selection at the RA or in a citizen-wide vote. Claude's point has considerable power; our elections are designed to be more about faction platforms than personality, but a one-seat election is more easily tilted toward personality than policy.

[Jon Seattle]

Jon has raised an interesting point about our political dynamics. I'm not a math major (nor do I play one one TV), but I think that Jon's suggestion that our system is "broken... because if tends to give close to equal numbers of votes to each faction" is more a function of the small number of voters who spread their votes across 4 factions. I suspect a larger electorate would tend to gravitate towards two poles, maybe with smaller parties playing more of a compromise role.

This is very sensitive to the number and configuration of our factions. I can answer the question about the math, though the social dynamics is not something I can predict. Here as a baseline is the result of the last full election:

Jan 1008, Zero-Based Borda, 7 Seats

CSDF (First Ranked = 23, Borda Score = 84, seats = 2)
SP (First Ranked = 5, Borda Score = 59, seats = 2)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 54, seats = 2)
DPU (First Ranked = 4, Borda Score = 48, seats = 1)

The method is not sensitive to population alone. If we just increase the population, but leave the ratios the same, we get exactly the same result:

Experiment 1. Zero-Based Borda, 7 Seats, 10x Voters

CSDF (First Ranked = 230, Borda Score = 840, seats = 2)
SP (First Ranked = 50, Borda Score = 590, seats = 2)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 120, Borda Score = 540, seats = 2)
DPU (First Ranked = 40, Borda Score = 480, seats = 1)

Now, lets experiment with adding seats. I am going to assume we add about 2.5 seats per island.

Experiment 2. Zero-Based Borda, 9 Seats (+2 for +1 island)

CSDF (First Ranked = 23, Borda Score = 84, seats = 3)
SP (First Ranked = 5, Borda Score = 59, seats = 2)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 54, seats = 2)
DPU (First Ranked = 4, Borda Score = 48, seats = 2)

Experiment 3. Zero-Based Borda, 12 Seats (+5 for +2 islands)

CSDF (First Ranked = 23, Borda Score = 84, seats = 4)
SP (First Ranked = 5, Borda Score = 59, seats = 3)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 54, seats = 3)
DPU (First Ranked = 4, Borda Score = 48, seats = 2)

Experiment 4. Zero-Based Borda, 14 Seats (+7 for +3 islands)

CSDF (First Ranked = 23, Borda Score = 84, seats = 5)
SP (First Ranked = 5, Borda Score = 59, seats = 3)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 54, seats = 3)
DPU (First Ranked = 4, Borda Score = 48, seats = 3)

Experiment 5. Zero-Based Borda, 17 Seats (+10 for +4 islands)

CSDF (First Ranked = 23, Borda Score = 84, seats = 6)
SP (First Ranked = 5, Borda Score = 59, seats = 4)
NuCARE (First Ranked = 12, Borda Score = 54, seats = 4)
DPU (First Ranked = 4, Borda Score = 48, seats = 3)

The Sainte-Laguë method is very effective sand-paper. The situation improves only very gradually, and, depending on the rounding can change in inconsistent ways.

[Cindy Ecksol]

Jon has raised an interesting point about our political dynamics. I'm not a math major (nor do I play one one TV), but I think that Jon's suggestion that our system is "broken... because if tends to give close to equal numbers of votes to each faction" is more a function of the small number of voters who spread their votes across 4 factions. I suspect a larger electorate would tend to gravitate towards two poles, maybe with smaller parties playing more of a compromise role.

I'm not sure that this is true, but I also don't think that the system is "broken." It's actually functioning exactly as designed, moving us towards consensus and away from a "winner take all" competitive orientation. That orientation is unique and makes for interesting dynamics that are worth working through if for no other reason than to find out whether such a view of the world can be worked out in practical terms or whether it is merely a dream.

This is not to say that the system can't be improved. See below.

As to electing a Chancellor, ThePrincess has noted that the Chancellor election would be non-partisan (that is, one who is not a member of a faction is eligible), but I would suggest that the same is true of a Chancellor elected by the RA. Indeed, a candidate who is not identified with a particular faction might be an ideal compromise candidate, either in a selection at the RA or in a citizen-wide vote. Claude's point has considerable power; our elections are designed to be more about faction platforms than personality, but a one-seat election is more easily tilted toward personality than policy.

"Personality" is not necessarily a bad thing. It's only bad if it's the ONLY thing upon which the system is based. And I think excluding "personality" entirely from the democratic process is not only impossible, it's also not healthy. If we really all were interchangeable robots who only acted when and as commanded by our "collective" (represented by the faction) we'd be....well, the Borg! Fortunately, we DO have personalities, and at least some part of the system ought to relish that and capitalize on it. In the case of the RA, I'd say that means assigning seats by faction, but then allowing the members of the RA to select from among their number the one who they feel is best suited by temperament, skills, and experience to manage the business of the RA. In the case of the Chancellor, I see nothing wrong with allowing citizens at large to express their preference for an individual to balance out the natural negotiated process of the RA.

It's only when we get doctrinaire either about excluding personality or relying exclusively upon personality as a basis for democracy that we will go wrong. Balance, however, is a good thing.

Cindy

[cleopatraxigalia]

That's not what I mean. Anyone who's been LRA knows that controlling things completely doesn't come with the territory. My point was that our system as it is doesn't reward much the faction that comes in first in the election, All they 'get' is the LRA, whose only real power is to set the order of the agenda at RA meetings.

you said .........."all the get is the LRA" omg..........they get seats in the RA, and if they actually get ENOUGH of a lead they get more than anyone else.. remember back to the good ole" days when CSDF had THREE seats in the RA? was that not enough.. NOOOO they want that (which you say is nothing) AND LRA.. come on ..........thats really misrepresenting in my opinon........I do believe if a faction gets ENOUGH of a lead that they should get more representation and now they do. If they get ONE vote more or even a few votes more they do NOT thuogh deserve to automatically get this thing that tips the scales even more their way......

.........And for those of you lovely gentlemen who keep explaining this to me.. Dont get me wrong.. I appreciate the lessons.. but, I totally understand the system. I just dont like it.

The P. and consider mind you..............I may be a bit optomistic but our faction is the most likely in the next election to benefit from the current situation. So this is NOT political. The P. again.

[Claude Desmoulins]

Princess,

Perhaps I wasn't clear. When I said:

My point was that our system as it is doesn't reward much the faction that comes in first in the election, All they 'get' is the LRA, whose only real power is to set the order of the agenda at RA meetings.

What I should have said was

My point was that our system as it is doesn't reward much the faction that comes in first in the election, All they 'get' compared to the faction in second place is the LRA, whose only real power is to set the order of the agenda at RA meetings.

As Jon has pointed out, the first place faction would get one more RA seat than the second place faction if , with f being the number of factions, n a non zero whole number, and s the number of seats,

s=n(f)+1

There has never in the history of the CDS been a two seat difference between factions.

I found your last post a bit hard to follow. Perhaps it's just me. I think you are arguing that giving the faction which comes in first and thus has at least a plurality of seats the LRA by default gives that faction too much power. I tend to think that not giving them the LRA makes coming in first rather meaningless, given that they may in fact have the same number of seats as one or more other factions.

I will now diverge into a short CDS history lesson, It's not intended for you per se, but rather a recollection for those who remember less of the CDS earlier days. Those older than I should feel free to correct any errors on my part.

The community founders, even those who were Americans, were very skeptical of strong executives. The original system had what executive powers there were vested in a self selected "Productive Ergatocracy" (at least I think that's what Ulrika called it) where the craftsmen and merchants selected the GuildMeister(in) who had a veto on finance bills and the like.

On several occasions, American CDS citizens have called for a directly elected executive akin to the US or French president. Given concerns about personality politics and concentration of power, we haven't chosen to go there.

Thus endeth the history lesson

Another important thing to keep in mind is that our consensus driven model may be a very good choice given that we are a voluntary community. If we ever "forked" and had a substantial number of people leave in a huff, someone would be left with a several hundred USD per month tier bill. Our system, which makes majorities hard to get, makes the kind of decision that might precipitate such a "fork" less likely.

Edited once: I remembered Ulrika's turn of phrase for the AC

[Desmond Shang]

Artisanal Collective. It was anything but democracy.

Ulrika has an incredibly complex sense of humour... I do believe some of her ironies are still playing out.

[Cindy Ecksol]

My point was that our system as it is doesn't reward much the faction that comes in first in the election, All they 'get' compared to the faction in second place is the LRA, whose only real power is to set the order of the agenda at RA meetings.

Another important thing to keep in mind is that our consensus driven model may be a very good choice given that we are a voluntary community. If we ever "forked" and had a substantial number of people leave in a huff, someone would be left with a several hundred USD per month tier bill. Our system, which makes majorities hard to get, makes the kind of decision that might precipitate such a "fork" less likely.

I find it interesting that these two statements were both in the same posting, Claude. It highlights something that I've been trying to codify but haven't been able to distill clearly enough to communicate, namely the focus in most of the analysis of the last two elections on "who came in first" versus a system that was clearly designed by people who did not value "first" but DID value "consensus."

If we believe that the founders were interested in creating a system that went against the inclination of most raised in Western societies to "win" by fostering consensus, then we should be applauding the results of the last two elections. They produced a consensus RA in a situation where there were clearly serious partisan divisions -- just as the founders intended. Instead most of what I've heard (especially about the January election) has focused on how awful it was that the faction that received the highest number of first place votes did not receive a majority in the RA, and that our system is "sandpaper" that smooths out (in a rather negative way) the peaks and valleys of our vigorous disputes.

I would contend that the root of many of our problems in CDS is not in the election system, but in the unwillingness of a good chunk of the population to give up the idea that there should always be a "winner" who deserves something more than the "losers." When we are able to understand that a "consensus faction" who has just shy of twice as many second-place votes as another faction may be better suited to lead the RA as the faction with all those first-place votes we may actually be on the path to making our very unique setup in CDS work to everyone's advantage.

Cindy

[Claude Desmoulins]

How we got this apparent dichotomy requires another detour into CDS history. The original Neualtenburg constitution said that the LRA went to the faction with the most RA seats. This worked fine when the SDF and MPP were the only factions. Then a troublemaker with no appreciation for order went and founded a third faction (said troublemaker being yours truly)

As Jon would have told us had he been around, with three factions and (then) five RA seats, a 2-2-1 split was all but guaranteed. At the time, Ulrika was both the election technical administrator and the only active member of the SC. She decreed that , in such cases, the LRA would go to the faction with the highest Borda count score. Rather than having all sorts of horse trading in the RA, this solution was codified into the constitution. At the time the LRA wasn't the most sought after position.

In an environment where two og the three governmental branches were self selecting and where voters who were not registered faction members never voted for a person, this way of choosing the LRA was as close as we came to having any government official with something vaguely resembling a popular mandate.

[Patroklus Murakami]

The problem with Cindy's analysis is that the constitutional balance has already been undermined by the removal of the agenda-setting powers the LRA used to have. The balance was "minority parties get over-represented but the faction with the most votes gets the LRA and is able to set the agenda". I'm happy with the changes that have been wrought now they've had time to bed in. It's fine for the RA to set the agenda collectively, the changes have worked more smoothly than I anticipated they would. The RA is probably going to move to a system where the LRA is elected after a general election and, though I don't agree with that, it's not a disaster.

But, and this is Claude's fundamental point if I've understood him correctly, there is no longer any benefit to winning the election. To put it another way, the citizens' votes don't count:) It does not matter who you put first, second or third; if there are four parties running they'll all get a seat. It doesn't matter if party A wins more than 50% of the vote, they get the same number of seats as party B which got far fewer (and only got a second seat because of the second and third preferences of party A supporters). Our electoral system does not return an RA which reflects the votes of our citizens. It's taken us a long time to realise this but our electoral system is utterly broken and needs reform to return us to being a democracy again. Over-representation of minority factions has not fostered consensus; it's left those of us in the majority feeling cheated.

[Jon Seattle]

There is a serious problem with the idea that our current system fosters consensus. It can work that way, but it is sensitive to the configuration of factions. In fact the most stable configuration in a four faction RA is not group consensus but bilateral coalition rule.

Here is a hypothetical situation: imagine factions A and B out of a four faction RA together represent about 40% of the electorate. A and B form a coalition. Since each faction has two representatives in a seven seat RA, A and B can decide any bill they please. No need to consult with factions C and D. 60% of the citizens get excluded from decision making.

The system is sensitive to the configuration of factions and not to their platforms. A and B may agree on any particular proposal, however popular or unpopular, and they still can impose that view. There is nothing about the system that depends on the substance of the proposal except that two factions agree.

The system provides a strong incentive for factions A and B to continue to coordinate their actions. If A can depend on B to vote with it, it need not gamble that it can convince C or D. It is quite likely that each will get bills passed that might not be possible otherwise. Unless there is a feature of a bill that is itself very costly to one faction and not the other, there is no advantage to defecting and breaking this relationship. So the relationship between A and B will be sustainable.

Is there any advantage to, say D, joining the A + B coalition? Perhaps, because A and B can make life difficult for D by passing laws that will harm D. A and B will each fear that the other might defect by forming closer ties with D (say reconfiguring the coalition into B + D instead of A + B). [it is very well known that multi-player iterated prisoner's dilemma is stable only with two players.] The only way D will be allowed to join A + B will be under conditions where A + B can substantially control D's platform.

Where factions compete for support there is always an advantage for a smaller parties to form coalitions with each other. If they achieve control that way both partners will have opportunities to use that control to shape the conditions to insure increased future support.

[Cindy Ecksol]

The problem with Cindy's analysis is that the constitutional balance has already been undermined by the removal of the agenda-setting powers the LRA used to have. The balance was "minority parties get over-represented but the faction with the most votes gets the LRA and is able to set the agenda". I'm happy with the changes that have been wrought now they've had time to bed in. It's fine for the RA to set the agenda collectively, the changes have worked more smoothly than I anticipated they would. The RA is probably going to move to a system where the LRA is elected after a general election and, though I don't agree with that, it's not a disaster.

Well, this takes me back to my contention a few days ago. The LRA position as it stands is powerless not because this or that particular power has been removed, but because the LRA him/herself is not supported by the RA. Jamie is not operating under different rules than Pat did: the LRA still sets the agenda, etc. The difference is that Jamie was selected by his colleagues as the one among them most capable of organizing them into a working unit. They trusted that he would set the agenda fairly, that he would accept reasonable requests for changes, and that he would administer the agreed upon agenda efficiently thus helping the RA to be as effective as possible. They GAVE Jamie that power when they chose him as LRA. Note that the LRA really doesn't (and shouldn't) represent voters directly in any way while performing his LRA functions: his primary responsibility as LRA (not as a representative of his faction) is to the other RA members, not to the general population.

Now look at the Chancellor position. The Chancellor has little direct interface with the RA. His/her function is to run the operations of the CDS, in particular the economic and social activities, within guidelines established by the RA and the Constitution. The Chancellor's primary interface is (and should be) with individual voters, and he/she represents the general population in front of the RA. Yet as it stands now, the voters have virtually NO say in the selection of the Chancellor -- it's a horsetrading operation of the RA to decide which "people's candidate" for Chancellor (self-nominated, remember?) will sit in that chair.

In other words, what makes the LRA position powerless and less effective than it should be is that the LRA has no implied power over his/her primary constituency. And what makes the Chancellor also less effective is that he/she has implied power from the RA but not from his/her primary constituency (the general population). Swap those two by having the RA select from among themselves the LRA and having the general voters select the Chancellor and you've realigned the power structure in a way that allows the Chancellor, LRA, and RA to capitalize on their "power of position" and balance against each other in a way that ought to provide more effective than our current system.

But, and this is Claude's fundamental point if I've understood him correctly, there is no longer any benefit to winning the election. To put it another way, the citizens' votes don't count:) It does not matter who you put first, second or third; if there are four parties running they'll all get a seat. It doesn't matter if party A wins more than 50% of the vote, they get the same number of seats as party B which got far fewer (and only got a second seat because of the second and third preferences of party A supporters). Our electoral system does not return an RA which reflects the votes of our citizens. It's taken us a long time to realise this but our electoral system is utterly broken and needs reform to return us to being a democracy again. Over-representation of minority factions has not fostered consensus; it's left those of us in the majority feeling cheated.

Well, and this goes back to my more recent point, that the Constitution as it exists would have us set our sights not on WINNING but on PARTICIPATING. With a system that relentlessly leads to an RA that requires cooperation between various factions in order to accomplish anything, a faction that comes to the table prepared to find common ground with other factions on various issues will succeed, while one that insists on having its own way as often as possible will fail. One thing I noticed back in January when I studied the various platforms is that there were many issues where the factions did not differ significantly from one to the other. Oh, there are some philosophical differences, but after the election the RA doesn't deal with philosophy, it deals with "facts on the ground." I've also noticed that Jon's hypothetical scenario positing stable alliances between two parties doesn't really apply. Sometimes SP aligns with CSDF, sometimes with nuCARE or DPU. Sometimes all but one party can agree on an issue, sometimes only two and they carry the day. But it's not about stable alliances, it's about alliances on specific issues. Factions sometimes work together on an issue even when the individuals don't particularly enjoy each others' company. THAT is what consensus is all about, and the more factions and candidateso come to the table with that understanding, the better off we will all be.

Claude's historical analysis is enlightening: the LRA selection process was determined by Ulrika by decree (and later codified) when a third party appeared and the dynamics which caused me to run in this by-election were first perceived. I'd argue that she misunderstood the implications of the system she created: even she was surprised to discover that it was not a system about "winning" it was a system oriented towards "participating" and that flawed understanding led her to sweeten a "win" with the LRA seat. Now that we've understood this, we're in a good position to re-evaluate the philosophy of our system and decide whether we want to change it entirely (along the lines that Jon has previously laid out perhaps) or whether we want to make our current system work more effectively by allowing positions to have inherent power that derives from their actual constituencies.

Cindy

[Jon Seattle]

I came to the CDS because of it's democratic system. I want to make perfectly clear that I hold that value above the success of any particular faction. I have in the past gotten out there are advocated for DPU and SP, and I would again. I actually prefer not to be in government, but I have a strong preference for being part of a free society, and I fear that is going away.

Lets look at some possible positions on the question of democracy and minority rule:

At one end of the spectrum is the pure equal representation position: that the representation of any faction in the RA should be proportional to the number of citizens who support that faction. This is the point where every citizen's vote is counted equally.

In the middle are various 'affirmative action' positions where some particular minority receives some more representation (citizen's who belong to these groups have their votes counted as more than other citizens.) I think that there are affirmative action positions that are consistent with the principle of equal representation, on the basis that they might create a better community than would be available with a pure proportional system, and members of the majority would then choose to allow some unequal representation in exchange for this benefit.

At the other is the minority rule position, where a particular minority has the right to decide questions and overrule a majority. Note that such positions are never in the affirmative action area: no one can give up their civil rights. A democratic system, any democratic system, requires the consent of the governed. When one group involuntarily is deprived of its right to representation, the social contract is violated.

I tend to support a mild version of the affirmative action position. A number of people, Cindy, Bromo have been arguing for outright minority rule on the basis that it somehow leads to consensus. We have not really heard a rationale for this position, but I think it important to differentiate between a system where anyone has a right to block a collective decision and a system were a minority can enact their proposals over the objections of all others. We have the later.

There are always any number of minorities that might hold power. A position in favor of minority rule always requires providing a reason as to why one particular group should have power over everyone else. I don't have any idea if the people are arguing for this position will provide a rationale. But if they do not they are just begging the question, why prefer why put one minority in power and not another?

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cindy

Jamie is *not* operating under the same rules that I was. That was one of the main points I was making. The LRA no longer sets the agenda (except in a formulaic way based on when bills were proposed and what business was left over from previous meetings). The RA changed the rules of procedure. That has changed the balance between the LRA elected as leader of the most popular faction and the RA. Could you address this point please?

Secondly, what is wrong with a majority vote of the citizens resulting in a majority of the seats in a legislature? That's the way democracy is supposed to work. Democracy is a system whereby the majority get to take decisions, not the minority. Obfuscating about 'winning' and 'participating' just misses the point. Majority rule is a major principle of democracy. Do you accept that?

[Cindy Ecksol]

I tend to support a mild version of the affirmative action position. A number of people, Cindy, Bromo have been arguing for outright minority rule on the basis that it somehow leads to consensus. We have not really heard a rationale for this position, but I think it important to differentiate between a system where anyone has a right to block a collective decision and a system were a minority can enact their proposals over the objections of all others. We have the later.

Jon, I have certainly never advocated "outright minority rule." Nor am I advocating any sort of a "preference system" as you seem to be. Under the current CDS system, every single citizen can count on the fact that his/her vote counts exactly as much as the next citizen's vote. Sounds pretty democratic to me, and not anything like "minority rule."

A correct statement would be that I believe that our current system encourages the democratically elected individuals and factions who win seats in the RA to negotiate with each other to create issue-oriented alliances. And I believe this is both a positive thing and distinctly different from systems like the ones I have the most experience with that create more of a "winner take all" environment. How you can interpret this statement as advocacy for "minority rule" is a mystery to me. I view it as advocacy for factions and individuals who are flexible enough in their views to see more than one solution to a problem and who like to get things done. If all of our state and national legislatures took this approach I expect the world would be a much better place.

Cindy