Proposal for Abstentions

I propose the idea that if a particular election recieves 60% or greater (i.e., consensus) in abstentions from the voting block, the election for that position alone is held in abeyance, and the position is appointed post-election by the PM, and confirmed by the voters either aye or nay (no abstentions), with a confirmation period of five days.

Thoughts, feelings, sugguestions?

An abstention is a pointless declaration that only says that you are not casting a vote. Any vote that is not cast is not counted. Shall I point out the hell things such as this raised in The West Pacific?

Please.

In the last election, they were counted.

Why do we have two topics on this?

Hersfold:

In the last election, they were counted.

Why do we have two topics on this?

Click to expand...

I have no idea. It seems people have found that this idea is a good starting point, so I will probably close the other one.

My primary philosophical problem with this is that I prefer people nominate candidates rather than reactively vote to abstain against a candidate who is running unopposed (as an example).

I might overlook this if the proposal mentions explicitly that the PM can appoint ANYONE he or she chooses, including the candidate that ran. If the people do not like that appointment, then they should vote NAY during confirmation.

What I do fear is that people will vote ABSTAIN against a candidate who may be perfectly qualified and who will execute the position well, but who has some drawbacks (eg, people don't like him/her, etc etc.).

wizardofoz01:

My primary philosophical problem with this is that I prefer people nominate candidates rather than reactively vote to abstain against a candidate who is running unopposed (as an example).

I might overlook this if the proposal mentions explicitly that the PM can appoint ANYONE he or she chooses, including the candidate that ran. If the people do not like that appointment, then they should vote NAY during confirmation.

What I do fear is that people will vote ABSTAIN against a candidate who may be perfectly qualified and who will execute the position well, but who has some drawbacks (eg, people don't like him/her, etc etc.).

Click to expand...

If the candidate that the region clearly and unequivovally (60% is a damn sure majority) rejects then it'd be ludicrous for the PM to renominate them! No, the rejected candidate should be just that, rejected.

As for the fear that a candidate is voted off because s/he doesn't play well with others than obviously s/he doesn't deserve to serve. We live in a democracy, not a Plato like Republic with a so-called "qualified" Philosopher King lording over us. We need ministers who can work with others, especially the citizens. If a candidate cannot win us over with both his ideas and sensibilities then the people have a right to reject them. This fear will continue even if this law doesn't pass, such is the nature of democracy.

I'm not so sure about that..

Dislikes can be irrational, and politically-spawned dislikes are especially so.

60% may indeed be a safe barrier, but I am articulating these points for consideration. Democracy can be a popularity contest, but it should not be. For example, if I disagreed with someone on every single issue, but I respected their logic and opinions, I would probably vote for them, all else being equal. However, this abstention proposal does open the door, however narrowly, for people to be childish in this regard.

We should be careful that we don't inadvertently foster an atmosphere where elected officials would rather be liked than to do the right thing in governing.

This is exactly what I wanted. I need the opinions and ideas of others to assist in the refinement of things.

Fed: Don't make a point without backing it up, please. Which is what I meant. If you think it's relevant, bring it out so it can be looked at and discussed.

Hersfold: I felt serious enough about my proposal to feel it warranted it's own thread. Anything more than a passing glance in the NOTA thread on my proposal is off-topic.

mr sniffles: Agreed, should a person running unopposed lose in this manner, they're thrown out. But this is open to debate, and I feel is probably the most contentious part of the proposal itself.

What I came up with overnight:

The rule would not apply to the position of Prime Minister, nor to Delegate or Vice-Delegate. These positions are too important to be appointed by anyone. Nor do I see any other position fit enough to make such an appointment. The courts, maybe, but even there raises questions, and for those, a runoff or special election would be highly preferable, regardless of delay.

Further, to accept the proposal would mean that everyone generally agrees that a person rightfully elected by a majority of a minority of the voting block lacks suffecient mandate for the position. Childish or not. It also further encourages people to vote, instead of abstaining for whatever reason.

Deikura:

The rule would not apply to the position of Prime Minister, nor to Delegate or Vice-Delegate. These positions are too important to be appointed by anyone. Nor do I see any other position fit enough to make such an appointment. The courts, maybe, but even there raises questions, and for those, a runoff or special election would be highly preferable, regardless of delay.

Click to expand...

Agreed.

Wiz: We should be careful that we don't inadvertently foster an atmosphere where elected officials would rather be liked than to do the right thing in governing.

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but I take special notice to this only because it peeves me so much to hear it. How can it be the right thing for a democracy if the people don't support it?!! (This isn't directed at anyone but) I find it insane that we define good leadership by having some person defy public will, that the people are useless rabble needing to be held in the hand and dragged by a so-called leader. The only differences I find between good leaders and bad leaders is how successful they can spin it; Stalin was vicious for sending away potential enemies to sunny siberia but FDR was a hero for interning the Japanese, Mugabe's land reforms are horrible and indecent but Guiliani's jailing the homeless was a stroke of success.

Deikura:

The rule would not apply to the position of Prime Minister, nor to Delegate or Vice-Delegate. These positions are too important to be appointed by anyone. Nor do I see any other position fit enough to make such an appointment. The courts, maybe, but even there raises questions, and for those, a runoff or special election would be highly preferable, regardless of delay.

Click to expand...

As far as technical points of the proposal goes, I think this would be a good exception.

Further, to accept the proposal would mean that everyone generally agrees that a person rightfully elected by a majority of a minority of the voting block lacks suffecient mandate for the position.  Childish or not.  It also further encourages people to vote, instead of abstaining for whatever reason.

Click to expand...

I'm not saying I wouldn't support this proposal if it went to vote today, but if I have to be the lone voice representing what could happen with this proposal, even if it is the worst-case scenario, I have no hesitation in doing that. I cannot agree that this would encourage people to vote. It may encourage them to post "ABSTAIN" instead of not voting at all, which is a small victory, but if there is a substantial minority doing this, then the democratic spirit in this region is truly broken (by virtue of the fact that so many people abstain without nominating their own candidate). As far as political underhandedness goes, this bill would open the door, as I have said before, for people to take the path of least resistance; that is, to mount an abstain-war campaign against ANY candidate. One can imagine a situation in which this is undertaken even for the most flimsy of reasons in order to throw the appointment to a Prime Minister, who may even be in league with this group. For a candidate in this position to be shot down for such illegitimate reasons is as much a perversion to democracy, sniffles, as what you mentioned in your post.

I'm sorry but I take special notice to this only because it peeves me so much to hear it. How can it be the right thing for a democracy if the people don't support it?!! (This isn't directed at anyone but) I find it insane that we define good leadership by having some person defy public will, that the people are useless rabble needing to be held in the hand and dragged by a so-called leader. The only differences I find between good leaders and bad leaders is how successful they can spin it

Click to expand...

I'm sorry if I peeved you, but I really don't think that what I said should be interpreted like this. I fail to see where my quote says that we should elect people who defy the public will. It is precisely because of the possibility of spin that I made that statement -- I hope people don't believe for one moment that the wider electorate in TNP can't be "spun" by a devious person in order to cast doubt upon a candidate. Someone could make people believe that a candidate was in fact arrogant or unlikeable. It is true that such a candidate could defend himself openly in these forums, but not everyone has the time or the nature to post logical defenses. What I DID say in that line you quoted was that people should judge a candidate based on his previous governing or potential to govern, rather than what someone TELLS us we should believe. And that is precisely what I find at odds with this proposal -- that it opens the door for people to tell the electorate what to believe; to tell them to abstain against a possibly legitimate candidate. I hope you don't believe that I define good leadership as defying public will or lack of public support, but I hope you realize too that the public/public will ITSELF can be manipulated. This kind of public manipulation lends itself to mob rule, which is as far away from true democracy as a dictatorship. We should remember that our Constitution is a protection against BOTH the government as well as the mob (an unthinking electorate).

I'm taking all of this into account. I appreciate all input.

If you really want to try something interesting - give the Delegate the aproximate powers that a Governor General in Canada or Australia has. That would solve a lot of the plurality issues.

Romanoffia:

If you really want to try something interesting - give the Delegate the aproximate powers that a Governor General in Canada or Australia has. That would solve a lot of the plurality issues.

Click to expand...

For those of us who don't live in Canada or Australia, those would be....?

Well, for one - the removal of certain ministers (or 'dissolution' of the government - that is to force a new election in the event that the government is paralised by a lack of a majority) at the legislative/representative branch's approval; or the appointment of certain government officials in the case that no one wants or fills that position.

I'd have to check the 'Nuk and Aussie constitutions for the exact details of who this is accomplished. It's been a while since I resided in Soviet Canuckistan or Oz, but their particular varieties of the Westminster Parliamentary System does make for quick turnovers of political power and forces government to be active.

Dei --

How about this?

How about we say that if a given percentage (say, 60%) vote ABSTAIN in a race, then that gives the PM the right to appoint not a person to fill that position, but merely a person or persons as candidates to run in a runoff. (A runoff with the original candidate and where abstain votes are not allowed).

Those who abstain would then have more choices instead of having to just vote yes or no on the appointed candidate, AND this provides more defense against the ABSTAIN option being used for political philandering (that is, the original candidate gets one more shot in a "fair" race without the abstain option.)

Romanoffia:

Well, for one - the removal of certain ministers (or 'dissolution' of the government - that is to force a new election in the event that the government is paralised by a lack of a majority) at the legislative/representative branch's approval; or the appointment of certain government officials in the case that no one wants or fills that position.

I'd have to check the 'Nuk and Aussie constitutions for the exact details of who this is accomplished. It's been a while since I resided in Soviet Canuckistan or Oz, but their particular varieties of the Westminster Parliamentary System does make for quick turnovers of political power and forces government to be active.

Click to expand...

As a proud Canadian, the powers of the GG ( the representative of the Queen, the true sole executive power) is only ceremonial. No laws can pass without "royal assent" which is the signature of the Governor General. While the GG has the power to stop any law and government from coming to fruition, to do this would be against customs and convention and cause massive uproar from the populace.

Also the existing Prime Minister gives the name of who s/he wishes to be Governor General which the Queen of England then appoints, true the Queen can appoint whoever she wants but that is once again, against customs and convention. The GG also dissolutes governments at the advice of the Prime Minister, there has only been one situation of where the GG did so without the permission of the Prime Minister and it's known as the King-Byng affair which lead to a major international tiff and major anti-british sentiment.

The powers of the Governor General and the Queen are over-stated to represent our traditions of being ruled by England, and they are in name only.

The executive named in the constitution is the Queen/GG but in reality, is the Prime Minister and Cabinet. In the constitution, the PM and Cabinet are supposed to be fused with the legislative (why they run as candidates in ridings and why you vote for the party and not the executive) but once again in reality it is quite different.

As for the Soviet Canukistan comment, low blow! Also, what? You haven't heard, we've got a raging Conservative PM ready to bow to the American foreign policy at anytime no matter how misguided, dismantle public healthcare for American Insurance companies, surrender Canadian territory AND make additional grand trade concessions for (un) free trade!

wizardofoz01:

Dei --

How about this?

How about we say that if a given percentage (say, 60%) vote ABSTAIN in a race, then that gives the PM the right to appoint not a person to fill that position, but merely a person or persons as candidates to run in a runoff. (A runoff with the original candidate and where abstain votes are not allowed).

Those who abstain would then have more choices instead of having to just vote yes or no on the appointed candidate, AND this provides more defense against the ABSTAIN option being used for political philandering (that is, the original candidate gets one more shot in a "fair" race without the abstain option.)

Click to expand...

A point of objective with this is to allow for less time to pass for registration suspention. A run-off would continue to suspend voter registration, which is what I'm trying to avoid. However, I feel there may be a way to integrate that idea.

It is, however, a point of contention that those candidates that lost to abstinence should continue to stand. My original thought of 70% abstain voting in a race would address the possible issue of people using this incorrectly, because nobody will influence that amount of the voting block with frivolity.

If the bill contained 70% (or even 2/3) instead of 60%, then I would be more willing to support it (even with no other changes).

Why not use the system by which a vacancy in the Speakership is filled in mid-term?

TNP Constitution Article IV Section 1:

F - Until otherwise provided by law, in the event of a vacancy in the office of Speaker, for any reason, the Regional Assembly shall promptly hold an election of its members to elect a new Speaker for the remainder of the term. In the interim, the Prime Minister shall chair the Regional Assembly. The election shall be organized as expeditiously as possible, but the period for nominations shall not exceed 48 hours, and the period for voting shall not exceed 72 hours, commencing within 24 hours after the vacancy occurs.

Click to expand...

By using that system, then the decision on whether someone would run is left to eligible voters who might decide to run, and not to the choice or choices of the Prime Minister. An accelerated schedule has been shown to work....as Wizard would attest when he was originally elected to his current office.
As to what percentage of absentions might trigger such a mechanism, let me suggest that whatever percentage is used be of the total turnout in a particular election, and not votes cast in a particular race. That would tend to reduce the manipulation that may be involved by voters consciously not voting in a race even to record an absention.

Grosseschnauzer:

As to what percentage of absentions might trigger such a mechanism, let me suggest that whatever percentage is used be of the total turnout in a particular election, and not votes cast in a particular race. That would tend to reduce the manipulation that may be involved by voters consciously not voting in a race even to record an absention.

Click to expand...

Absolutely.

I would agree to that if it wouldn't suspend RV approvals, simply that those coming in after the start of any election like that not be allowed or their votes not counted.

I think I could use that too.

I feel the same way about this that I do about the other (remarkably similar) topic we have on "None of the Above": it's really pointless, I think. If only 40% turn out, then our leader should be decided by 40%; the 60% who didn't vote shouldn't have a second chance.

And in case people start complaining about unfairness or a minority rule, they will hopefully remember (if they are a part of that 60% majority) that they have no one to blame but themselves for not voting and maybe they will do better next time.