Poll: Does our system need to be re-vamped?

[Cindy Ecksol]

There's been much discussion over the last few months regarding the fact that our electoral system does not seem to allow the faction that receives the most vote points to have any significant advantage over the second-ranked faction and sometimes not over the third-ranked faction. Some perceive this as "undemocratic" while others are intrigued by a system set up to foster a "democratic consensus."

I'm no pollster so I suppose someone's going to tell me that I didn't set this poll up in an unbiased fashion, but just for fun, let's see what we really think rather than beating around the bush.

Cindy

[bjerkeleerie]

I dont think the government needs replacing as much as the personalities, and that has just happend to a good extent

to paraphrase Margret Mead "Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change a sim. Indeed, it's the only thing that ever has."

maybe we can move beyond political debate to actually building something people like and are proud of.

[Bromo Ivory]

I believe that any government selection system's purpose is to instill legitimacy to the government. Whether it is the "divine right of kings," direct democracy, proportional representation or our unique system - the government can govern so long as the governed believe a particular government has the right to govern. Democracy gains its legitimacy through consultation of its citizens - with the correct belief that executing the will of the people as closely as possible will maximize legitimacy, and indeed accomplish the moral cause of allowing a people to more or less govern themselves.

The biggest issue is what to do about minority rights? The issue with a straight direct democracy the "minority opinion" is always ignored. The effect of this is that it reduces the overall legitimacy of the government by having up to 50%-1 people's will not executed (and if you notice in most 2 sided elections the vote counts usually are pretty close, and a 5%-10% spread is usually considered a "decisive" victory in a democracy - which means typically 45% of the people do not get their will executed in this "decisive" victory!) [And of course, this is scaled by turnout - which erodes legitimacy further depending upon the reasons for the people not voting]

So what to do?

In SL we have a unique situation - the government as it were does not have a monopoly of power over its citizens as does a RL government. Escape from CDS is a mouse click away - and a continuous stream of people leaving would create a tight financial problem with the viability of the SIM (since the land is rented from Linden Labs!). This means that we really have to pay close attention to minority rights or our government will be more of a filter rather than inclusive (and make it easy for new factions to form and have a toe hold in decision making, too!). The selection process must uphold & respect minority rights MORE THAN a RL government might for these reasons.

I feel the current system does this, and the constant tinkering with the rules in order for one faction to jockey for more power over another is wrong headed - especially since all tinkering thus far that I have seen seems to take away from minority rights and deposit power in established and already dominant powers.

[Patroklus Murakami]

And what options do the majority have when their votes count for nothing? You should think about that very carefully.

[Cindy Ecksol]

And what options do the majority have when their votes count for nothing? You should think about that very carefully.

Pat, the majority votes do not "count for nothing." A strong showing for a faction turns into seats in the RA. What you object to is that it is not "winner take all" -- under the CDS system, we do not subscribe to the concept of majority ruling completely. If a majority is truly that strong, then with citizen support they should be able to create strong legislation and compromises in the RA that move the faction platform forward. That is the process that I think is worth experimenting with, one that encourages the "majority faction" to create compromises by working not only within the RA but throughout the community. That strength should also translate into the ability to select the Chancellor (and certainly WOULD if we changed to a general election system for Chancellor) and if those who sit on the RA are generally recognized as smart and capable, it should also translate to RA leadership (and would do so more easily and securely if the LRA were elected by the RA members).

That's my opinion and I'm still sticking to it because I haven't yet heard any more compelling arguments. Of course that offer from Desmond is still very tempting, so I reserve the right to change my mind

Cindy

[Bromo Ivory]

And what options do the majority have when their votes count for nothing? You should think about that very carefully.

The options are simple: Compromise. And the votes do count for something - just not the US/UK style of disenfranchising the minority so entirely.

Our system requires inclusion of multiple points of view of the electorate - and given the way the p[oints are distributed, the result really can represent a better cross section of the population than otherwise.

If someone managed to get a majority of seats - they would run the show, but thankfully the system does not allow for such a complete granting of power without an overwhelming mandate.

After all, "Majority" in this case is 1st, 2nd and 3rd votes combined. Thats quite a constituency.

[Jon Seattle]

Our system requires inclusion of multiple points of view of the electorate - and given the way the points are distributed, the result really can represent a better cross section of the population than otherwise.

To the contrary. Having a system were the same number of representatives are always selected from each faction means that factions need not worry about completing in elections where gaining or loosing citizen's votes matters. Basically representatives can do whatever they like, they will get a seat anyway.

In order for collations of RA representatives to form legitimate compromises between Citizen's interest groups they have to be actually seeking to serve the interests of those groups. Without an electoral system that matters there will be a tendency for some RA members to put their own interests first, and form coalitions based on power seeking.

Even worse, an effective way of playing the current system is to form factions (or temporary interest groups) that have no connection with actual interest groups among citizens. If you create, say, five three or more right-wing factions (or left-wing factions, or just unicorns and fountains factions) you can create coalitions and win every vote in the RA. Those 'wins' will have nothing to do with the interests of citizens.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Cindy, Bromo

My proposal is not 'winner takes all'; far from it. I am proposing that we use proportional representation so that the number of seats in the RA reflects the number of votes a faction gets from the citizens. The argument that the result comes from the combination of 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences is only valid if citizens are choosing to put factions in 2nd and 3rd position. Our current system forces voters to do that which is no choice at all!

I doubt whether anyone would get a majority of seats under the system I'm proposing; I think our electorate is too diverse for that. But factional representation in the RA would more fairly reflect the balance of opinion in the community. How can that be wrong from a democratic standpoint?

We must reform our electoral system. It has been found wanting for months, it produces perverse and undemocratic results and is open to being gamed. The question is 'How to reform it?' I've suggested several options and argued hard for one of them. What reform do you want to see?

[Cindy Ecksol]

Cindy, Bromo

My proposal is not 'winner takes all'; far from it. I am proposing that we use proportional representation so that the number of seats in the RA reflects the number of votes a faction gets from the citizens. The argument that the result comes from the combination of 1st, 2nd and 3rd preferences is only valid if citizens are choosing to put factions in 2nd and 3rd position. Our current system forces voters to do that which is no choice at all!

I doubt whether anyone would get a majority of seats under the system I'm proposing; I think our electorate is too diverse for that. But factional representation in the RA would more fairly reflect the balance of opinion in the community. How can that be wrong from a democratic standpoint?

We must reform our electoral system. It has been found wanting for months, it produces perverse and undemocratic results and is open to being gamed. The question is 'How to reform it?' I've suggested several options and argued hard for one of them. What reform do you want to see?

I've already said what I think needs to be reformed: the power alignment for the LRA and the Chancellor. The Chancellor needs to be independent of RA, and the LRA needs the support of the RA. Having the Chancellor elected "at large" and the LRA elected by the RA would resolve the problems we've had (especially recently) with that and also give whichever faction polls the strongest the opportunity to control the Executive as well as having a shot at setting the agenda in the RA. Beyond that I'm not ready to go: I see no specific problem with the system we're using to select RA members.

So that's ONE proposal for reform. Somewhere in this discussion I've lost track of exactly what Pat is proposing -- can you point us to your proposal (or reiterate it here)?

Cindy