I got an idea today

I had Solm, one of my technies, build this test-page and will provide an auto-tger capable of printing out special authorization codes that will be validated by this ballot collector.

http://solm.me/voter/

Obviously, in real use it would be spruced up with TNP imagery and probably hosted on TNP forums as a TNP Website page. Admins with coding knowledge could review the script for general use.
 
I think it might make more sense to use a googledoc form so that it is not controlled by a hosting person but rather by whoever happens to be the election commission.
 
I was thinking of taking that code and putting it on a Zetaboards "website" on our forum, but that also makes sense. How'll about we run with this at the moment and see how many voters it gets.
 
I like the idea, especially the format.

The unique identifier would be, as you say, a special registration number TG'd to a specific nation.

Now, if it is on a given server, double voting attempts can be easily detected by looking at the logs, provided you get a good lock on the physical location of the voter when they 'register' to vote or cast a vote.
 
I've been thinking about using third party applications and coding something which takes emails from them to nation_name@nations.thenorthpacific.org and sending a telegram with the email's contents.

That way things like CIVS can be used by submitting a list of citizens @nations.thenorthpacific.org

Thoughts?
 
It's an interesting prospect, but it makes me wonder: if we develop into a two-party system, would we also not be able to get work done like some real-life countries?

In short my worry would be that elected officials will vote not on how they see things, but how their party does, or how they think their party does, even if it goes against what they feel is correct.

Also, how would these elections work, in a bit more detail perhaps?
 
Todd McCloud:
It's an interesting prospect, but it makes me wonder: if we develop into a two-party system, would we also not be able to get work done like some real-life countries?

In short my worry would be that elected officials will vote not on how they see things, but how their party does, or how they think their party does, even if it goes against what they feel is correct.

Also, how would these elections work, in a bit more detail perhaps?
Click to expand...
In short my worry would be that elected officials will vote not on how they see things, but how their party does, or how they think their party does, even if it goes against what they feel is correct.
Click to expand...

In my system, only the delegate is an elected official notwithstanding any "independents" possibly. MPs are appointed by the parties to fill the legislative quotas.

I think if a minority government occurs, it'll be more difficult to get things "done", yes. But if the region's will is divided at the election, then the progress made by the legislature should be that of concessions and compromises to represent the divided nature of the region.

If we use a system for votes different than FPTP, like Gully was saying, that will prevent us from turning to a two-party system and make it more likely we're a multi-party system. But I can't figure out to apply a non-FPTP vote to my system.

Currently we're already a two-party system (:P), if you want to look at it that way, the candidates in our delegate elections are the leaders of the (left) Reform Party and the (center-left) Progressive Party.
 
One idea would be not to worry about the parties and just run the delegate elections off-forum presuming that the delegate elections will demonstrate the regional will enough, even if MPs don't really follow it.
 
It's an interesting prospect, but it makes me wonder: if we develop into a two-party system, would we also not be able to get work done like some real-life countries?
Click to expand...
As Unibot just pointed out and I pointed out earlier two-party systems are encouraged by plurality voting, whereas systems of proportional representation encourage multiparty systems.

Moreover, the gridlock you see in places like the United States is not the result of the two-party system but instead the result of the extensive checks and balances of the country's presidential system. There's no reason why a polity which has a two party system can't also be a parliamentary one, in which the party currently in the majority is constitutionally free to do what it wants without being blocked by the minority until ousted from power at an election.
In short my worry would be that elected officials will vote not on how they see things, but how their party does, or how they think their party does, even if it goes against what they feel is correct.
Click to expand...
That's why I wanted it to be open list, so that individual candidates could get votes and if they were sufficiently popular buck the party line. And if a candidate really deeply disagrees with their party, they can always join another or form their own. And in terms of getting things done, even if legislators follow the party line, the party line can include compromising when necessary to get things done.
 
Namyeknom:
Doesn't sound like TNP at all.

:P
Click to expand...
We have no upper-house or filibuster, and while the Delegate can veto legislation he's elected by the same legislature passing these laws and threshold to overcome a veto is only 3/5th's, not 2/3rd's. That's a much weaker system of checks and balances than the United States. And even parliamentary systems have things like independent judiciaries.
 
Gulliver is right, The United States government was designed specifically by its founders to be inefficient; The North Pacific is not cut in the same fashion although to compare, it probably has more checks and balances than Canada, whose Senate is only of an advisory capacity and the Prime Minister has no veto I'm aware of and I believe the Governor General has a de facto veto power that is purely ceremonial and lacks political capital. In Britain, The House of Commons was so powerful at least at one time that it led David Hume to conclude that the only thing keeping the Parliament from being completely unbalanced and tyrannous was political corruption; commoners being bribed by lords. :P
 
The government that governs least, governs best.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session". ------- Mark Twain.
 
Romanoffia:
The government that governs least, governs best.

"Nobody's life, liberty or property is safe while the legislature is in session". ------- Mark Twain.
Click to expand...
I must disagree with Mr. Twain, I think the legislature's life, liberty and property is very safe during its session.

Nonetheless, I can't wait to try this out. Roman, I think your idea of a plebiscite for "Minister of the RMB" or something quasi-legitimate sounding, would be a good way to trial it.
 
Various schemes to do it can also tell us exactly which schemes get the best results. I think about 10%, tops, maybe, of people in the region actually look at the RMB at all. I can think of a few ideas that can get people's attention. ;D
 
I'm thinking we'd see the best activity with an auto-tger and a WFE notification. Candidates can use the RMB and telegrams to make their pitch.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top