Currently, we elect the Speaker and the Attorney General by plurality vote, while we elect the Delegate and Vice Delegate by majority vote. For sake of uniformity and simplicity, I bring before the Regional Assembly a bill that will change the voting system so that the Speaker and the Attorney General are also elected by majority vote. What say you, citizens of TNP?Voting Methods Bill:
Voting Methods
- Thread starter quak1234
- Start date
- Pronouns
- he/him/his
- TNP Nation
- Zemnaya Svoboda
- Discord
- Eluvatar#8517
I don't oppose this. It would increase the number of runoff votes we see, which some would dislike.
I would prefer electing all offices by approval vote as well
I would prefer electing all offices by approval vote as well
falapatorius
TNPer
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
I see no particular reason to make this change. And I see even less reason to change to some other system of voting. Sometimes I might be willing to vote for one candidate, it none of the others, which is why I dislike any form of preferential vote as it creates pressure to vote for those whom you do not want to vote for
Because the elections question only choose one winner. STV is specifically for multi-candidate electionsSyrixia:
I find it unlikely that your vote will be discounted if you fail to rank all candidates. You can, in fact, vote for one, or none.Grosseschnauzer:
Multi-winner.Syrixia:
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
Instinctively, this ranking system forces voters to rank when they do not want to rank. This idea is based on a multi-party system hypothesis, which hasn't developed here, and I do not believe it is an appropriate one for TNP. For most of TNP's history we had no political parties and candidates ran on their own and contested elections were judged on merit. These days we get uncontested elections frequently and I gather the controlling political force chooses who runs and sometimes chooses those who who might simply end up being seat warmers. This proposed idea would not fix that issue and I suspect t would make it worse.
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
Im fine with the proposed change. I agree with Grosse and I do not want to see a change to the voting system. We should keep it simple, silly.
I agree with this point.Grosseschnauzer:
Am i the only one who thinks it is bonkers that TNP has a more convoluted voting system than some real-life countries?
Any voting system you have to google in order to understand is too damn complex.
Any voting system you have to google in order to understand is too damn complex.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
The Bill is now in formal debate. Formal debate shall conclude in five days, at which time a vote on the Bill shall be scheduled.
Gulliver
TNPer
Actually, STV can also be used for single-winner elections. It's functionally identical to IRV in the single-winner case, so IRV is really a special case of STV.plembobria:
I'm ambivalent about preferential voting in TNP, but this is an unfounded argument. No preferential system requires you to rank all the candidates, bullet voting for a single one is acceptable if you really don't care.Grosseschnauzer:
Considering systems more complex to some degree than first-past-the-post are ubiquitous outside of the former British Empire, not really. The majority criterion for election to single member offices is widespread. And I hope most TNPer's don't have to google the definition of things like "majority" or "top two".Flemingovia:
You also have to do a bit of reading, if not googling specifically, to understand TNP's government offices and separation of powers, but we're probably not going to scrap that and put some random person in complete control as dictator. Simplicity is not in and of itself satisfactory as a sole criterion.
All in all, I would support this change. I don't think it would be a grave injustice if it didn't pass, but it would be an improvement and the accusations that it's too complex are exaggerated and based on the unfair standard that anything even an inch above rock-bottom simplicity is rocket science.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
The pure form of the preferential does exist in the RL US, in publicly held corporations, or closely held with a fairly large number of shareholders and shares.Gulliver:
In such situation, in general, each share equals one vote, and the owenr or their proxy can cast the votes in whatever way they wish. In such a system the votes need to go somewhere, and in many corporations with this system, the uncast votes of an owner can bereallocated among all of the nominees for director. So in effect, abstentions are nullified since the votes are reallocated and vote can go to someone the shareholder did not want to vote for.
So what I said is correct, given the system corporate law origins. The same principle usually doesn't apply in nonprofit member corporations, unless each member would have one vote per seat up for election, and the preferential allocation system were used to avoid runoff voting. that would still cause votes to becast for nominees the member might not wish to vote for.
It is ecperience with those RL examples that leads me to my discomfort with such systems, so I dispute your argument to the contrary.
Five people run for an election. One gets 15 votes, the others get eleven each. the one with fifteen wins. Simples.
- TNP Nation
- Zyvetskistaahn
- Discord
- zyvet.
Formal debate on the Bill is concluded. A vote on the Bill is scheduled to begin in two days.
Gulliver:
STV, or IRV if it's a single candidate election, (as Gulliver noted) is thus more representative because you can rank your favorite candidates, and if your first choice doesn't get in, the votes go to your next choice. After the whole shaboop is done and the winner(s) is/are found, the result is quite accurately representative.
Cormac
TNPer
- TNP Nation
- Cormactopia III
- Discord
- Cormac#0804
I don't think plurality is sufficient, because as others have noted it could mean that a candidate is elected with a majority actually not supporting them. I don't think that's acceptable in a democracy, especially when it's not that cumbersome to hold run-off elections.
I agree with those who are opposing approval voting methods though. I would rather hold an actual run-off election than use complicated ranking systems for instant results.
I agree with those who are opposing approval voting methods though. I would rather hold an actual run-off election than use complicated ranking systems for instant results.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
In the first post-Pixiedance era constitutions, with the Delegate and Cabinet, the Delegate was majority, and each Cabinet position, including a Prime Minister were plurality. As other offices were added, Vice Delegate, Court, Attorney General, and Speaker, and an R.A. based Security Council as special R.A. committee, and then a weird body that lasted for a period, all were plurality except the Vice Delegate. The real issue wasn't majority elections, or runoff, but getting people to run.
I really don't see the need to change. If you are concerned about a plurality then adopt a proportion requirement for election of say,40 percent, and a rule for who goes into a runoff if no one gets that threshold. You really don't need to make all offices elected by majority. As to the Court, the obvious way to have a majority vote requirement is to elect each seat individually; I personally don't care for the current system, and prefer we go back to electing each Court seat individually. YMMV.
I really don't see the need to change. If you are concerned about a plurality then adopt a proportion requirement for election of say,40 percent, and a rule for who goes into a runoff if no one gets that threshold. You really don't need to make all offices elected by majority. As to the Court, the obvious way to have a majority vote requirement is to elect each seat individually; I personally don't care for the current system, and prefer we go back to electing each Court seat individually. YMMV.
falapatorius
TNPer
I agree with your first statement, but 40% is close to majority. Why amend to 40 when this bill amends to 50+1?Grosseschnauzer:
I had no idea that's how it used to be done. It does seem preferable to 3 candidates running, 3 candidates elected.Grosseschnauzer:
- TNP Nation
- McMasterdonia
From memory, the old court elected system still more often than not created a situation with three people running for the three officers. You just asked people to list two options for Associate Justice, electing Chief Justice independently. I think the current system is simpler to count for Commissioners, with simply asking people to list the three they want elected. The system has worked relatively well.
Unfortunately, I don't think serving on the court is an attractive option for many people as it is often a thankless job. Certainly a job where it looks as though no matter what decision a court makes, some people are always unhappy with it.
That sounds more complex than the option being proposed. Majority election with a run off is simple enough and creates uniformity with the other elected offices.
Unfortunately, I don't think serving on the court is an attractive option for many people as it is often a thankless job. Certainly a job where it looks as though no matter what decision a court makes, some people are always unhappy with it.
That sounds more complex than the option being proposed. Majority election with a run off is simple enough and creates uniformity with the other elected offices.
Grosseschnauzer
TNPer
There have been several election systems for the Court. The idea of electing the Chief separately from the two Associate justices was one such, as electing all three separately was another variation. Another system tried to choose the highest vote getter as Chief and the next two as Associates. The first system was nomination by the Prime Minister, with ratification.votes timed so that the Court would serve its term in between the general election. You name it, it's been tried. The current system, IMHO, is the one that has produced the least experienced Courts, and it is that which is the best argument for change.
I'd support the idea of changing the election system for the Court. Plurality-at-large is rather messy. The only barrier here is the complication of vote-counting.
I don't know. the current system has elected some superb justices.
We are. We're adopting a 50% +1 plurality!Grosseschnauzer:
Piscivore:
A vote FOR candidate A isn't necessarily a vote AGAINST candidate be in the altruistic sense.Cormac:
I like Sorbet and Chocolate and if you ask me to choose I would, doesn't mean I dislike either, I just like one more.
What's more, in practice I do not believe our system has caused any catastrophic events and I think the possibility of one is remote.