Why?

Hello.

I was just wondering, why do we elect the Delegate and Vice Delegate by majority vote, but then elect the Speaker and Court Justices by plurality vote? I know it says that is how it shall be done in the Constitution, but why was it made that way?

Thank you. :hug:
 
Hell, I wanted a proportional system and even I voted no on av :P
 
quak1234:
I was just wondering, why do we elect the Delegate and Vice Delegate by majority vote, but then elect the Speaker and Court Justices by plurality vote? I know it says that is how it shall be done in the Constitution, but why was it made that way?
Makes sense considering the Delegate and Vice Delegate are the 2 most important gov't positions. The spoiler effect (vote splitting) may come into play in a plurality vote with multiple candidates (more than 2). A majority ensures those positions must receive more than half of the votes cast. I certainly wouldn't want a Delegate or Vice Delegate be elected after receiving only 25% of the votes cast. Runoffs may be annoying to some, but I'm ok with it.
 
flemingovia:
BEcause certain people in TNP like complicated voting systems (mentioning no turtles).
Shhh!

You know we have to keep all those government bureaucrats busy counting votes and sussing out how to get things done otherwise they would be up to mischief that could do real damage! :P :lol:

But seriously. ;)
 
I think it'd make sense to switch the Speaker and AG elections to majority vote as well, for reasons of uniformity.

Justice elections are more complex, as we elect three of them simultaneously.
 
Nierr:
Hell, I wanted a proportional system and even I voted no on av :P

Out of curiosity, how would proportional voting work in this system?

r3naissanc3r:
I think it'd make sense to switch the Speaker and AG elections to majority vote as well, for reasons of uniformity.

Justice elections are more complex, as we elect three of them simultaneously.

:agree:

Gradea:
It is not the Eluarchy but the Gradeaocracy.
?
Maybe in your dreams :lol:
 
mcmasterdonia:
Nierr:
Hell, I wanted a proportional system and even I voted no on av :P

Out of curiosity, how would proportional voting work in this system?
I can think of two ways!

1) Everyone who gets at least 1 vote is a proportional % delegate. In order to make important decisions, like what color to make the links in the WFE, they must create a coalition that can reach majority agreement.

2) Everyone who gets at least 1 vote gets to spend a proportional amount of the term in the delegate seat, going in order from highest % to lowest %.

I think that implementing either or both of these would bring increased fairness, democracy, and openness to our great region! :yes:
 
or...

1. People get back to enjoying roleplay and say to Flemingovia "you are wise and loved. You just decide this stuff".

2. Same as 1, but in a louder voice.

I think that implementing either or both of these would bring increased fairness, democracy, and openness to our great region! :yes:
 
As falapatorius said, it makes sense, but r3n's idea is actually a good one. I would vote for such a proposal
 
r3naissanc3r:
I think it'd make sense to switch the Speaker and AG elections to majority vote as well, for reasons of uniformity.

Justice elections are more complex, as we elect three of them simultaneously.
:agree:
 
No one's stopping any of you from going to suggest that change in the RA :P
 
quak1234:
Hello.

I was just wondering, why do we elect the Delegate and Vice Delegate by majority vote, but then elect the Speaker and Court Justices by plurality vote? I know it says that is how it shall be done in the Constitution, but why was it made that way?

Thank you. :hug:
Del and VD are seen as more important than the other roles. I tend to agree.

Changing Speaker and AG makes logical sense, but I'm fine with them as is.
 
Back
Top