PCA Electoral Reform

[Patroklus Murakami]

Proposed Constitutional Amendment - Electoral Reform

• Amend Article I, Section 2 so the first paragraph reads:

  "Each citizen has one vote which they may cast for one faction. Representative seats are chosen by means of the Sainte-Laguë method based on the votes cast by citizens. The citizens will also rank the list of candidates from their preferred faction to serve on the RA."

Rationale:
This enacts option (iii) from the thread on the election committee and electoral reform here.

Our current electoral system produces disproportionate results because it forces everyone to give votes to second and third factions regardless of whether or not individuals want to vote for more than one faction or not. These forced votes deliver faction members to the RA regardless of whether voters want them or not; the citizens' vote is largely irrelevant in CDS elections, the number of factions is the determining factor. As a result factional representation in the RA does not reflect the strength of support for the different factions in the electorate; it cannot be representative with our current rules.

This reform enacts a simpler system which guarantees proportionality. Every citizen gets one vote (like in most real life elections) and can cast that for their preferred faction. Citizens will be able to choose between the candidates of their preferred faction by ranking them as at present. This reform is simple for voters to understand, it is easy to count and turn the results into seats and the number of seats each faction gets will be proportional to their true level of support in the electorate.

Just to be clear, this is my proposal rather than the CSDFs. We have discussed the options for electoral reform that I outlined in my post on the election committee but I think we'd be open to discussing all of them provided we get a reform enacted in time for the July elections. This is my preferred option and I'm putting it out now to stimulate debate and make sure there's a proposal on the table for the RA to consider.

[Bromo Ivory]

Why, oh why do we have to keep fiddling with the election system?

I suppose this is, as Pat had said earlier, "the CDS disease" - I was hopeful that we might cure ourselves of this! A straight proportional representational system has its attractions, though it will tend to remove minor parties.

But ... I would propose a Constitutional Amendement to disallow electoral changes 180 days before any election.

[Patroklus Murakami]

Bromo

Thank you for your comments on this proposal. I sympathise with your eye-rolling about changing the electoral system yet again but I think the reasons for the previous attempts at electoral reform have not yet been addressed. We passed one electoral reform last term so that voters could withhold their vote from factions they did not agree with and discovered that it had unintended consequences. So, the RA restored the status quo. The weaknesses of the status quo were well known and largely accepted as a problem (which is why the RA passed the electoral reform) and they still need to be corrected. I've presented several ideas for how we might do this, this enacts one of them.

I suppose this is, as Pat had said earlier, "the CDS disease" - I was hopeful that we might cure ourselves of this!

Touché I do think that constitutional tinkering is 'the CDS disease' but I think this issue is so fundamental to our status as a democracy that it must be addressed.

Straightforward proportional representation will only remove minor parties if they gain less than 1/7 of the vote in a 7-seat RA for example. If they gain more than say 10 votes out of 70, they'll get a seat. That seems fair to me. Otherwise we have our current situation where any faction can get a seat by simply putting their name on the ballot and getting a handful of first preferences irrespective of the citizens' votes.

But ... I would propose a Constitutional Amendement to disallow electoral changes 180 days before any election.

This is a good idea but I hope you're not proposing that we do this now, instead of tackling the glaring problem of our unfair electoral system? Retrospective legislation is never a good idea and ruling out electoral reform before the next elections, when we've had a Commission looking at the issue since January, would be changing the goalposts. I'm sure that's not what you intend.

I think this proposal is a good idea but I would alter it to say no more electoral changes 60 days before an election or 60 days after one so that we avoid both the temptation to change things in the immediate aftermath of an election or immediately before one. I'd also make that 'elections or by-elections' to avoid a situation where the RA changes the rules before a by-election for partisan reasons.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I'd like to request that the LRA puts this on the agenda for the next RA meeting when, hopefully, it can be considered alongside the outputs from the Election Committee.

[Patroklus Murakami]

I think this was referred to at the RA meeting on 5 July but not voted on. The assumption was that the next RA would pick up the issue. I'm bumping this thread to provoke some further discussion of the idea (and any alternative ideas other people may have). I'll propose that it goes on the RA agenda in a few weeks time once there's been time for some discussion.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I think this was referred to at the RA meeting on 5 July but not voted on. The assumption was that the next RA would pick up the issue. I'm bumping this thread to provoke some further discussion of the idea (and any alternative ideas other people may have). I'll propose that it goes on the RA agenda in a few weeks time once there's been time for some discussion.

I'm mildly amused to see that one who was most adamant in insisting after the January election that it was somehow unacceptable and unethical for each voter to CHOOSE to vote for only one faction is now advocating that the Constitution be changed in a way that will FORCE all voters to vote for only one faction. I think of this as "forced competition" or perhaps we should say "forced faction elimination" versus our existing system of "forced consensus." Neither is perfect, but given a choice, I'd rather see us work with the consensus-oriented system envisioned by the founders rather than trying to make ourselves look more like "real world" systems. The interesting thing about Second Life is that we CAN participate in experiments like CDS that defy traditional definitions of concepts like "win" and "lose" and I'd like to see us continue this particular experiment rather than giving in to our pre-conceived ideas of what "government" looks like and ending up with a governance system just like all the others.

Cindy

[Patroklus Murakami]

I don't think I ever said it was unacceptable or unethical to choose to vote for one faction. Far from it, I was totally in favour of the reform that allowed voters the choice to vote against factions they disapprove of instead of forcing them to rank all of them.

I understand your objection though that this will force all voters to vote for only one faction when they may well want to vote for two or more. It's a problem with my preferred option but, on balance, I think it's better to force voters to make a choice which will mean proportional representation than to persist with the status quo where the number of factions standing has a bigger effect on the outcome than the citizens' votes. I think the current system is simply indefensible and it undermines our claim to be a democracy; when votes don't matter that much, how can we call ourselves a democracy?

I think it's probably a mistake to believe that our electoral system was designed to promote consensus by our wise, all-knowing founders. My guess is that's a myth that's grown up over the years. It's just as likely that it was a *mistake* - the idea was to have Borda count ranking within factions for the candidates, not between factions. It could also have been one of Ulrika's little gags; I'm sure she'd find it amusing to see how it's become an example of ancient wisdom The important thing is whether the system suits our purposes, not whether it emulates real world systems or not. I don't think it suits our purposes because it produces unfair results which don't match voters' wishes. It's not 'winning' that I'm that bothered about, it's fairness.

[Cindy Ecksol]

I don't think I ever said it was unacceptable or unethical to choose to vote for one faction. Far from it, I was totally in favour of the reform that allowed voters the choice to vote against factions they disapprove of instead of forcing them to rank all of them.

I understand your objection though that this will force all voters to vote for only one faction when they may well want to vote for two or more. It's a problem with my preferred option but, on balance, I think it's better to force voters to make a choice which will mean proportional representation than to persist with the status quo where the number of factions standing has a bigger effect on the outcome than the citizens' votes. I think the current system is simply indefensible and it undermines our claim to be a democracy; when votes don't matter that much, how can we call ourselves a democracy?

Well, that's one way of looking at it. I'd argue that there's nothing inherently "undemocratic" about a system that requires consensus. In fact, I could even argue that such a system is MORE democratic in that it ensures representation from a true majority or even a supermajority consisting of two or more factions rather than the plurality that would likely be in control if we changed to more of a "winner take all" system. You are very focused on the idea that a particular faction that gains the most votes somehow loses out when the vote awards it leadership positions but not an outright majority. I just don't see it that way: it seems to me that the opportunity to lead the RA is actually a valuable chance to help the entire community define and execute great programs.

I think it's probably a mistake to believe that our electoral system was designed to promote consensus by our wise, all-knowing founders. My guess is that's a myth that's grown up over the years. It's just as likely that it was a *mistake* - the idea was to have Borda count ranking within factions for the candidates, not between factions. It could also have been one of Ulrika's little gags; I'm sure she'd find it amusing to see how it's become an example of ancient wisdom The important thing is whether the system suits our purposes, not whether it emulates real world systems or not. I don't think it suits our purposes because it produces unfair results which don't match voters' wishes. It's not 'winning' that I'm that bothered about, it's fairness.

I'm also not sure it's so important how the system got started. The point is that it's what we've got, and it certainly does have its positive aspects. And what intrigues me the most is that the system as it exists is completely different from the RL systems that most of us are familiar with. I'd be loathe to throw that away just to satisfy our standard perceptions of political "winning" and "losing." Why not continue the experiment, no matter whether it was "intentional" or not?

This has been an interesting conversation so far, and it seems that you and I may have laid out two poles around which the discussion can easily revolve. I'll be interested to hear what others think about the two models for moving forward and even more interested to see what action the RA takes this term.

Cindy