Election results and some statistics

Justice Soothsayer · Post by **Justice Soothsayer** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:12 am

I'm not so sure that there were 68 citizens eligible to vote; one must be a citizen for 28 days prior to the election in order to be eligible to vote, so our most recent citizens would "count" for determining how many RA seats to be awarded, but not eligible to vote until the next election. If we look at 44 votes out of those eligible, our turnout figures would be higher, even though 44/68 is quite respectable.

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 12:21 pm

[quote="Beathan":j612tm91]Ranma --

I disagree with your post. There might be many good reasons for not voting. For instance, a person might want to be in the CDS because she believes that democratic government is always better for its citizens than are the other alternatives. However, that same person might not have sufficient information to make vote competently. In such case, I think that the person should be allowed to live, without penalty, in the democratic community but should be applauded, not criticized, for having the wisdom not to vote blindly.

Second, a person might like the CDS for all sort of different reasons, but might also find all four political party platforms distasteful. In such case, the person cannot, without compromise to personal commitments, support any party. Not voting under such circumstances also seems appropriate.

A 66% voter turnout is very respectable. Additionally, when trying to make contact with our citizens during the election, I noted that several people on the list were no longer in SL -- which means that the real voter turnout was higher than listed.

In RL, elections with extremely high voter turnout are often suspect. There tends to be some coercion in such elections. The coercion might just be a penalty for not voting, as you propose. However, it is a small step from penalizing not voting to penalizing voting wrongly (voting against the ruling party). This is a road we should not even look down.

Beathan[/quote:j612tm91]

I respectfully disagree. A 66 percent turnout sucks when you have an entire week to vote and can do so in the comfort of your own home. To be fair some of them left SL but the list is suppose to be very current. About not having enough information, I disagree again. Any citizen who even glances at the forums has a very good ideal where the factions stand. In any case it is the duty of a citizen to stay current.
The CDS cost more than most Sims to own and pay maintenance. If a residence has no interest in government they would be better off renting from Desmond or Anshe. Both of them offer similar services at a discount.
Again this voting rate sucks when in real life a person has to go to a voting station and then stand in line for the right to vote and that is often only a single day. Most places usually get about a 50 percent turnout. Thus put in this context a 66 percent turnout sucks. Some places in real life get higher with the residents having to go out of their way to vote.
Oh if you do not like the factions either leave or make your own one.

Oni Jiutai · Post by **Oni Jiutai** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 1:14 pm

Do we have any data on the turnout rate in previous elections?

It would be interesting to see what the trend is.

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:23 pm

There were 26 people who voted last term (July 2006). Unfortunately, I do not have a record of how many eligible voters there were at that point.

However, I vaguely recall that there were about 35 eligible voters at that time, which gives us about 74.3% turnout. I did find [url=http://neufreistadt.info/id17visual2lay ... l:6a0hbivn]this page[/url:6a0hbivn] which shows that as of August 7, 2006, there were 40 citizens in neuf.

Sudane may have better records than me.

[b:6a0hbivn]Update[/b:6a0hbivn]
I found an old email from gwyn, and I can confirm that there *were* 35 eligible citizens at that point.

[b:6a0hbivn]Update 2[/b:6a0hbivn]
I did a little archeology of the old nburg forums, and came up with [url=http://forums.secondlife.com/showthread ... 9:6a0hbivn]this gem[/url:6a0hbivn]. It's the election result announcement from January 2006. Ulrika announced there that there were 26 eligible voters, 20 of whom voted (76% turnout). She also mentioned that this was the first time that the turnout was less than 100%.

So there you have it folks, I think we can conclude that there is a trend of declining voter turnout.

Oni Jiutai · Post by **Oni Jiutai** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:06 pm

Fascinating.

On the other hand, our total votes are going up. Let's look on the bright side.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:03 pm

Also, in the early days, nearly everyone in Neualtenburg was there because of the political aspect. Now, we're getting people here for business or personal reasons - they wish to take advantage of our structure, or their friend lives here. So, I'm not at all surprised the percentage might go down. Their loss - their money spends as good as anyone's, and if they purposefully give up their chance to direct the running of the simulators...

Carolyn Saarinen · Post by **Carolyn Saarinen** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 11:20 pm

[quote="Jon Seattle":kw6fnxiy]Warm congratulations to everyone who won a seat in the RA. CSDF decided to put Pat first in our candidate list and so it was not a surprise that he won. We feel he is the right person to represent the CSDF.[/quote:kw6fnxiy]

Pity he hates the BDSM community huh?

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 1:10 am

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":2ad096np][quote="Jon Seattle":2ad096np]Warm congratulations to everyone who won a seat in the RA. CSDF decided to put Pat first in our candidate list and so it was not a surprise that he won. We feel he is the right person to represent the CSDF.[/quote:2ad096np]

Pity he hates the BDSM community huh?[/quote:2ad096np]Carolyn-

Nothing that I have said on this issue in these forums nor in our conversation inworld could be taken to mean that I 'hate the bdsm community'. For the record, I do not hate the bdsm community or anybody in it. I've said several times that what you choose to do in your own bedroom is your own business. But I do reserve the right to defend freedom of speech including the freedom to express critical viewpoints of bdsm on ethical and political grounds. That seems perfectly fair to me and very far from 'hatred'.

Carolyn Saarinen · Post by **Carolyn Saarinen** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 2:36 am

Deleted

Diderot Mirabeau · Post by **Diderot Mirabeau** » Mon Jan 22, 2007 4:51 am

[quote="Carolyn Saarinen":bbf8m79i][quote="Jon Seattle":bbf8m79i]Warm congratulations to everyone who won a seat in the RA. CSDF decided to put Pat first in our candidate list and so it was not a surprise that he won. We feel he is the right person to represent the CSDF.[/quote:bbf8m79i]
Pity he's a bigot.[/quote:bbf8m79i]
This post is in violation of the Forum Moderation Guidelines' article 3.5, which state:
[quote="Forum Moderation Guidelines":bbf8m79i]3.5: When disagreeing with another poster make sure that your response takes issue with the arguments rather than with the person behind them. Abuse and personal attacks will not be tolerated. [/quote:bbf8m79i]
I hereby issue a warning in accordance with article 5.1 of the same:
[quote="Forum Moderation Guidelines":bbf8m79i]5.1: In case of a violation of the abovementioned principles a moderator may choose to issue a warning to the violator in question. [/quote:bbf8m79i]
(Re)posting a message where the only point is to assert that a certain fellow poster is 'a bigot' does not add anything of value to the dialogue in the forums. As the guidelines say:
[quote="Forum Moderation Guidelines":bbf8m79i]6.2: Abusing the forums by addressing issues that are a simple dispute between two parties. These matters should be solved by contacting directly the individuals in question and in cases where this fails to bring a resolution the matter should be brought before the SC for arbitration.

6.3: Making libelleous statements intended to defamate a person or group; put into jeopardy his standing within the community or to appeal to the sympathy of the forum in an ongoing dispute, which is better solved through private conversation or by arbitration with the SC. [/quote:bbf8m79i]
If you feel this sanction is unjustified or disproportionate you have the possibility to appeal for a review by contacting any member of the SC providing reasons why you think the decision is unjustified:
[quote="Forum Moderation Guidelines":bbf8m79i]7.1: The decision of a moderator is subject to peer review if so desired and the citizen affected by a sanction may therefore lodge an appeal through written notice to any member of the Scientific Council or the SC archivist. [/quote:bbf8m79i]
The members of the Scientific Council are: Fernando Book, Flyingroc Chung, Gwyneth Llewelyn, Dianne Mechanique, Patroklus Murakami and Diderot Mirabeau.