submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Here you might discuss basically everything.

Moderator: SC Moderators

mtlundquist
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:13 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by mtlundquist »

Cindy Ecksol wrote:

On the other hand, had MT arrived in RA today with a proposal that the RA certify the zero-based Borda count as the definitive method for allocating seats, I expect he would have found not only a second for his motion, but also four enthusiastic votes in favor of his proposal. And in the future, there would never again be a challenge to election results on this basis.

Cindy

Perhaps you didn't read far enough down my bill (bit like the SCs non consideration of my appeal).The second point was that the RA consider the method of counting. Seems like you had another blind spot. Had someone seconded my bill then perhaps we would have got to debate this, but no one was brave enough, or was too worried about the effect on their own faction, or about the effect on the Chancellor election or something. Too late now, we have what we have, which in my view was the death of a democracy. CDS it turns out is really only a club.

MT

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting" Stoppard
User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

Bromo Ivory wrote:
Cindy Ecksol wrote:

[...] we merely used the method that had ALWAYS been used. [...]

Are you sure that was used in all cases in in all times, and that the most recent elections used this method and no other?

Yes.

Bromo, you're chasing up the wrong trail here. I know for a fact that zero-based Borda has been used in every single election, primarily because I've been HERE for every single election. Even considering one-based Borda is a recent suggestion that has never actually been used.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
User avatar
Bromo Ivory
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1428
Joined: Wed Jan 17, 2024 11:38 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Bromo Ivory »

The main thing is that SC made a choice. My ultimate goal is not to alter the number of seats to nuCARE (which I am no longer a member) but to have elections with the maximum amount of legitimacy and fairness.

To this effect, MT did submit a bill that would declare the 0 count method as being the official method - as Claude indicated the SC was not 100% certain of the method so had to choose the method of counting (which is the issue) after the polls had opened. And regardless of a tradition, this smacks of the SC changing the rules of an election while the election is underway.

Also this is first election where this made a difference so one could argue the 0 or 1 based borda count has never been differentiated until this date.

Unfortunately the RA refused to second the bill. I hope they come up with some other bill that would clarify.

Alternatively the SC should announce the method of arriving at the borda counts before the polls open next time (either form the RA laws or tradition, consulting Desmond, whatever).

I don't much care how we count the votes as long as it is known and announced before the polls open, and it is stuck to regardless of the election results. Like a real democracy.

All in all, this has been a pretty large screwup. And since the SC and RA do not want to take this seriously, or appears not to, it makes me wonder how dedicated to democracy the government is. I came to CDS to take part in a democratic experiment, and while there is a ton of debate and argument, this underlines how the basic foundations of a democratic process (free and fair elections usually have a fixed way of counting votes) need some shoring up. I can get a ton of drama just about anywhere in SL, but particiapte in a democracy? I was hoping here.

The current RA has a shadow of illegitimacy on it because of this. I hope the RA finds it in itself to correct this so the D in CDS can really mean "Democratic" without the sense of irony it has at the moment.

Aliasi Stonebender wrote:
Bromo Ivory wrote:
Cindy Ecksol wrote:

[...] we merely used the method that had ALWAYS been used. [...]

Are you sure that was used in all cases in in all times, and that the most recent elections used this method and no other?

Yes.

Bromo, you're chasing up the wrong trail here. I know for a fact that zero-based Borda has been used in every single election, primarily because I've been HERE for every single election. Even considering one-based Borda is a recent suggestion that has never actually been used.

==
"Nenia peno nek provo donos lakton de bovo."

Jon Seattle
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 648
Joined: Mon May 29, 2006 6:18 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Jon Seattle »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

To this effect, MT did submit a bill that would declare the 0 count method as being the official method

I posted a bill in February that would have clarified that the zero-based Borda scores are the official method. The RA did not act on the issue. There was no need to "establish" zero-based Borda, as it has always been accepted practice.

I don't understand your goals in asking for the election to be voided by the RA. First, an outgoing-RA voiding the election of its successor would be a very bad precedent, allowing future RAs to void any election if they did not like the result.

In a democracy, elections are not games, they are methods for determining the preferences of the electorate. It seems to me that this election was effective in this regard. No evidence you have presented raises serious doubt about the election accurately measuring voter preferences. If the election was effective, what do you hope to acheive by working to have it voided? It seems to me that tossing out citizen's votes, making them vote again, perhaps with some making it to the polls a second time, would not be very democratic.

User avatar
Aliasi Stonebender
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 586
Joined: Fri May 26, 2006 12:58 pm

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Aliasi Stonebender »

Bromo Ivory wrote:

The main thing is that SC made a choice. My ultimate goal is not to alter the number of seats to nuCARE (which I am no longer a member) but to have elections with the maximum amount of legitimacy and fairness.

They did not make a choice; merely clarified to do what has been done all along.

This is the sort of thing that a politician who's supposed to be receptive to the feelings of the electorate isn't ever supposed to say, but as a now private citizen I have the full freedom to do: Quityerbitchin'.

Member of the Scientific Council and board moderator.
mtlundquist
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:13 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by mtlundquist »

Jon Seattle wrote:

I posted a bill in February that would have clarified that the zero-based Borda scores are the official method. The RA did not act on the issue. There was no need to "establish" zero-based Borda, as it has always been accepted practice.

I don't understand your goals in asking for the election to be voided by the RA. First, an outgoing-RA voiding the election of its successor would be a very bad precedent, allowing future RAs to void any election if they did not like the result.

In a democracy, elections are not games, they are methods for determining the preferences of the electorate. It seems to me that this election was effective in this regard. No evidence you have presented raises serious doubt about the election accurately measuring voter preferences. If the election was effective, what do you hope to acheive by working to have it voided? It seems to me that tossing out citizen's votes, making them vote again, perhaps with some making it to the polls a second time, would not be very democratic.

Jon

The point is, as Bromo states, that the new RA has a shadow of illigitimacy on it. This because the method of counting wasn't clarified. You stating that you prepared a bill to clarify the matter actually supports my case. Why did we need a bill, in your own view, if the method was already established without doubt with no possible confusion as to an alternative. You have condemed this election out of your own mouth Jon. And Cindy you have done the same. You show the same confusion about the status of the count method as Jon. And yours is the confusion of an SC member who decided on this matter!! Add that to the confusion of Claude and things start to look very unsatisfactory.

As to Jons bill itself, its a pity it didn't reach my attention. I wish I had seen it. Then perhaps this farce would not have happened. On the other hand the farce has at least exposed CDS as a place of little actual democracy. The challenge now is to return democracy to CDS. Who is brave enough!! Or who wants to keep playing in the club and not rock the boat.

I agree in a democracy, elections are not games. Seems to me that the method of counting does determine the result as you found recently. How the electorate casts its vote is only part of the equation. If we change the method of counting those votes produce different results. We are back to Stalins quote. The only way that it could be considered a fair and above board election is if the method of counting is fixed BEFORE anyone casts a vote. Different methods of counting would still produce different results, but it wouldn't matter anymore because CDS would have chosen a single method.

Cindy - as a response to your earlier comments about the court. Of course people challenge the decisions of courts, thats what appeals to higher courts in the many countries (including yours and mine) are for. And in some cases the decisions of the earlier courts are seen to have been wrong and are overturned. Unfortunately in CDS the process is a bit one dimensional so there is no where to appeal but the same SC that made a poor decision in the first place.

MT

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting" Stoppard
Claude Desmoulins
I need a hobby
I need a hobby
Posts: 730
Joined: Thu May 25, 2006 9:28 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Claude Desmoulins »

MT,

It's probably not necessary to say that I disagree with your overall thinking here. That said, there's one particular point which I can't wrap my head around. Six of the seven seats turned out the same regardless of whether one used zero borda or zero borda. Given that, why rerun the whole election rather than have the voters revisit just the issue in dispute which was affected by the allegedly tainted decision of the SC, that is, the question of to which faction seat #7 goes?

cleopatraxigalia
Forum Wizard
Forum Wizard
Posts: 1340
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2007 2:42 pm
Contact:

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by cleopatraxigalia »

I do agree with you totally claude.. it is just the one seat that is in question.

what will the SC do about that one seat that IS in question?

the now retired P

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

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

mtlundquist wrote:

The point is, as Bromo states, that the new RA has a shadow of illigitimacy on it. This because the method of counting wasn't clarified. You stating that you prepared a bill to clarify the matter actually supports my case. Why did we need a bill, in your own view, if the method was already established without doubt with no possible confusion as to an alternative. You have condemed this election out of your own mouth Jon. And Cindy you have done the same. You show the same confusion about the status of the count method as Jon. And yours is the confusion of an SC member who decided on this matter!! Add that to the confusion of Claude and things start to look very unsatisfactory.

Just to clarify: I have NEVER been confused about what the standard method of allocating seats is for this election or any prior election. Speaking for this election, I am also sure that Jon was never confused as to what the standard should be. He computed the "alternative" allocation purely as an intellectual exercise, not realizing that it would confuse others. For those of us who like math, it's actually kind of intriguing to see an anomaly like this and wonder about things like what the function actually looks like and how many degrees of freedom it has and other esoteric sorts of things that no one but a mathematician would care about.

So Jon shared his intellectual curiosity with the rest of us and that seems to have confused you and a few others pretty seriously. Fortunately you were not sitting on the SC. None of us were confused at the time we ruled: we did the research, evaluated the facts, and handed down a ruling based on those facts. If you think that ruling based solely on facts makes the current RA "illegitimate," that's your prerogative, but I find your opinion to be more than a bit illogical.

Cindy

mtlundquist
Casual contributor
Casual contributor
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Jan 06, 2008 8:13 am

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by mtlundquist »

[quote="Cindy Ecksol"

Just to clarify: I have NEVER been confused about what the standard method of allocating seats is for this election or any prior election. Speaking for this election, I am also sure that Jon was never confused as to what the standard should be. He computed the "alternative" allocation purely as an intellectual exercise, not realizing that it would confuse others. For those of us who like math, it's actually kind of intriguing to see an anomaly like this and wonder about things like what the function actually looks like and how many degrees of freedom it has and other esoteric sorts of things that no one but a mathematician would care about.

So Jon shared his intellectual curiosity with the rest of us and that seems to have confused you and a few others pretty seriously. Fortunately you were not sitting on the SC. None of us were confused at the time we ruled: we did the research, evaluated the facts, and handed down a ruling based on those facts. If you think that ruling based solely on facts makes the current RA "illegitimate," that's your prerogative, but I find your opinion to be more than a bit illogical.

Cindy[/quote]

Cindy

Please go back to the start of this thread and read Claudes words, he was confused.

Also why would you and Jon see a need for a bill to clarify the count method if it was already clear!!! Sorry but its you and Jon who are illogical. The SC made a poor decision and is too stubborn to admit it.

MT

"It is enough that the people know there was an election. The people who cast the votes decide nothing. The people who count the votes decide everything." Joseph Stalin
"It's not the voting that's democracy; it's the counting" Stoppard
Cindy Ecksol
Master Word Wielder
Master Word Wielder
Posts: 449
Joined: Thu Jan 10, 2008 8:37 pm

Re: submission to the SC re the July 2008 CDs election

Post by Cindy Ecksol »

mtlundquist wrote:

Please go back to the start of this thread and read Claudes words, he was confused.

Also why would you and Jon see a need for a bill to clarify the count method if it was already clear!!! Sorry but its you and Jon who are illogical. The SC made a poor decision and is too stubborn to admit it.

MT

Go back and read your own post MT. You implied that _I_ was confused, and I was not. Claude may have been confused, YOU may have been confused, OTHERS may have been confused. I do not speak for them one way or the other. In the end, the SC made a good decision based on clear precedent. That decision COULD stand as "law" but Jon and I and others agree that it would be best for the RA to consider the issue and develop a bill that will ensure that the SC doesn't have to bother un-confusing you or anyone else in the future. That's one of the responsibilities of the RA and as an SC member it's easy for me to say that I'd be happy to see the RA do its duty in this particular case.

Cindy

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”