Electoral reform ideas

[TomC]

I'm with ya in the spirit of what you are trying to do, but the IRV replacement is too complicated. I'm sure some who want to analyze the votes will get it, but if we try explaining to potential new voters, we're gonna lose some when we start quoting formulas. I say we advance the top three, or we pick a percentage like 15 and say anyone who gets above 15 can advance. The formulas don't really solve the problem of having voters understand the results enough. {Ceil? What the hell is that??}

Your ballot proposal looks pretty good on first read. It makes it even more important that we have confidence the sofa can do the job.

[TomC]

Your ballot proposal looks pretty good on first read. It makes it even more important that we have confidence the sofa can do the job.

Yes, it does make that important, but I think that we should make our proposals with the assumption that our SoFA can do the job.  If we dumb things down so much just because we're afraid that our SoFA might not be able to do his job, it seems to me that we might as well abolish the position, in that case.  If a SoFA isn't doing his job, he should be replaced, rather than having our regulations changed to accomodate that.

No, I wasn't saying dumb down the secret ballot policy to accommodate a less than competent sofa, I was saying make sure we pick a highly competent sofa so we can have faith in a secret ballot practice.

[TomC]

In places it seems voters are casting one and only one vote for president, and elsewhere it talks about "highest preference votes," like here:

§10. Concession of Victory.

   1. If a candidate shall concede his or her victory of a Senate election after the certification of the election result, then the candidate with the next greatest number of highest preference votes in that election shall then be declared victor.
   2. If both members of a Presidential ticket shall concede their victory in the Presidential election after the certification of the election result, then the members of the ticket with the next greatest number of highest preference votes in that election shall then be declared victors.
   3. If a victor who has conceded shall wish to retract his or her concession, then he or she shall only be able to do so with the permission of the newly declared victor.
   4. Concessions made before the certification of election results, or on or after the date on which the newly elected official is due to be sworn in, are of no legal effect whatsoever.

So does this mean that if a Presidential candidate wins and concedes, that the next Presidential candidate, who has not offered a concession speech, is declared victor, and the VP candidate of the top ticket does not have any claim to the office?  What if in this chaos, everybody but Jesus, at some time, offered a concession speech, as do the top vote getters, as both Joe and Emsworth have at this point, doesn't take office due to disenchantment with the process- would Jesus be President or say, DeFarge?

There's something about tying concession speeches to someone else's victory that worries me. The ticket with the most votes wins, period. Allowing for all this quitting is bad law- we voters vote expecting a winner to take office. And if too many quit we get a President that few approved of.
And the record here points to the possibility.


Oh, and  they choose one ticket, right? The preference stuff was carried over by accident?

[TomC]

preferential is not the probnlem. It IS the best method. The problem is the barstardised version used in atlasia.

If preferential voting is not the problem, then its the way the ballots are watched and torn apart for every nuance. It becomes sport to try and analyze how to effect the 5th round, and how to be cute and entertaining.

Look at Peter Bell's ballot:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

He clearly made this ballot because of prior mistakes by others: the absence of a running mate, even though the running mates are listed two preferences down. The misspelling of Akno21 repeated, intentionally erroneous since the next line shows he can indeed spell Akno. He did this to frustrate the sofa, to confuse him about the decisions he had to make. Did he mean true harm? I doubt it, but he was being cute with his ballot- and if that's what we want then it doesn't really matter what system we use. But candidates put a lot into running. Supporters clearly get behind candiates and believe in them. There's a place for jokes and strategizing but what we witnessed last weekend was excessive- and electoral integrity was compromised. We saw how that affected people. So, if we keep preference voting- we desperately need secret ballots. If neither is changed, I'll be voting at 11:58ish and encouraging others to do the same.


EDIT: And I don't mean disrespect for Peter, I'd like to see him as head of my party, and hell, my nation here, but there are certain people here who are looked up to, and at important times, I feel those people need to set a good example. Peter is absolutely one of those people. I don't think this ballot helped.