I don't usually get involved in these discussions but as a NON faction person, i have to say that tinkering with the factors to create a perceived desired result doesn't instill a lot of trust... and as someone who talks to many newcomers to our community, i can't figure out a way to explain that system simply. While i like Gwyn's proposal for its simplicity and clarity, i can also see how it can work to sustain the current polarization... and in effect requires those of us who see good points in different factions to choose "a faction" when what we really want is something in between... CDSF on growth perhaps, and Simplicity on style for example.
I've suggested before a style of what is known in the corporate world as cumulative voting, which might work to let us see exactly the preferences of the people, and is only a bit of a leap from where we are today. For those who don't know how that works, (and it is used to elect directors of most corporations), the number of votes are allocated to the number of candidates running, i.e., in our last election,each voter would be given 7 votes to allocate as he/she pleases. The total votes in the election, given a community of 80 voters, then, is 560 votes. The top seven vote recipients would be seated. In a totally balanced election, 7 candidates with 80 votes each would be elected. So to guarantee a win, 81 votes must be allocated to any particular candidate. A voter is free to allocate all 7 votes to one candidate, or one vote to each.
How to choose candidates becomes the issue then, and clearly will rely on personality, something we've avoided admitting we do in the past. I'm sorry though, your factions win or lose my vote based on the personalities representing them. So it behooves a faction to keep its strong personalities acting in the best interest of both the faction and the community. It really isn't fair to expect an LRA to have to babysit.
I also think the election of the Chancellor should stay with in the RA. The Chancellor needs to be someone with a skillset that most people dont' have, both technically speaking and with regard to availability. If there is one consistent complaint i've got about our Chancellor's it is that they never seem to be around much. In my opinion, Chancellors should attend RA meetings on a regular basis... they are the "superintendent" of the sims after all, and the RA meetings are the place where concerns tend to be aired. I see the biggest responsibility of the Chancellor to be enforcement of covenants.. and it shouldn't be left to the people to ask for that... the fact that we live in a restricted community should be enough of a voice that we want to have the covenants enforced. Appointment of other public servants is also critical. Those aren't by nature "political" spoils.. or shouldn' t be, imho.
There is a detachment in the CDS between the people and their representatives. Many of us do not wish to align with a single faction. A change to a system that requires personal accountability to the populace might help. A complicated mathematical formula will only make it harder to know how to vote.
but, it may be because Rose deeply disliked the other candidate, or it could be that she realized that her vote would count 7 times as much as Jon's if she lumped all her votes on the one candidate. There is no real reason for people to vote their real opinions because by voting strategically instead they trade a small amount of risk for a very large potential gain. In the end, if a group of voters lumps strategically, everyone has to lump strategically or loose a sizable chunk of their influence on the outcome.
