UDL Convention, December '10 (Official business complete.)

[Antonio the Sixth]

Is it reasonable to call for an end to voting now that I believe almost everyone has voted?

We got 21 votes of 27. That's rather good but seeing the closeness of the vote I'd recommend to wait until a clearer majority emerges (maybe we could PM the 6 remaining voters).

[The Artist Formerly Known As and Now Again Known As Ogis]

Rank the following choices for official party color from 1 to 7:

[2] Red       
[4] Orange    
[3] Gold      
[7] Salmon    
[6] Fuchsia   
[5] Purple    
[1] Blue      

Vote yes or no on the following question:

Shall the party bylaws be amended to replace "five" in Article 6 with "seven"?

[  ] Yes
[X] No

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

Guys, regarding Senate elections, we shouldn't run more than two candidates. I really doubt we can get elected more than two.

Yes, I know there is preference system, but we're about to have more candidates than seats and if we vote only for our own members, that's not good for possible future cooperation with other parties.

Beside, someone must finally try primary system.

[Хahar 🤔]

I really don't see why running more than two candidates would be a problem. The system prevents vote-splitting.

[Purple State]

I would like to announce my interest in the presidency of the UDL.

Granted, I won't actually be considered a member for another 23 hours, but just giving a heads up before I officially declare.

And obviously I prefer Purple for party color, but alas I may not vote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Welcome to the party, PS. It's awesome to have you

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

I really don't see why running more than two candidates would be a problem. The system prevents vote-splitting.

You're missing my point. It's irresponsible to run a candidate for almost all seats. 

[Thomas D]

Guys, regarding Senate elections, we shouldn't run more than two candidates. I really doubt we can get elected more than two.

Yes, I know there is preference system, but we're about to have more candidates than seats and if we vote only for our own members, that's not good for possible future cooperation with other parties.Beside, someone must finally try primary system.

Agreed. I liked it that last time I could vote for a couple of conservatives who I liked personally.

[Хahar 🤔]

I really don't see why running more than two candidates would be a problem. The system prevents vote-splitting.

You're missing my point. It's irresponsible to run a candidate for almost all seats. 

I don't understand why, though. I feel like the more candidates we run the better it is, since we can get more people involved. This way, too, we can appeal to a wide variety of non-UDL voters; I think, for instance, that the votes Ben gets from outside the UDL will be from different people than the votes that Antonio gets.

[Dr. Cynic]

Agreed with Xahar... I think that if they wanna run, they should run. I see nothing wrong with it, especially with the voting system we have now... You can pick and choose. No one HAS to tow the party line.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I see Hashie's point here...I would personally prefer an internal party mechanism on running a single-candidate, or two at most - I can see lots of opportunities for tactical voting from opposition parties.

While it might be more 'democratic' to let as many run as possible, I'm not entirely sure of the long-term wisdom of it.

I understand, huggy-lovey, progressive party etc etc.... but in the early stages of a new party, I think there's nothing wrong with showing a unified front and instilling a bit of party discipline.

I'm happy to respect whatever the party wants on this, but I think this election is a good chance to get our national presence established and we can't take the risk of overloading the ballot and having less predictable voting patterns.

[Хahar 🤔]

I see Hashie's point here...I would personally prefer an internal party mechanism on running a single-candidate, or two at most - I can see lots of opportunities for tactical voting from opposition parties.

While it might be more 'democratic' to let as many run as possible, I'm not entirely sure of the long-term wisdom of it.

I understand, huggy-lovey, progressive party etc etc.... but in the early stages of a new party, I think there's nothing wrong with showing a unified front and instilling a bit of party discipline.

I'm happy to respect whatever the party wants on this, but I think this election is a good chance to get our national presence established and we can't take the risk of overloading the ballot and having less predictable voting patterns.

It's Kalwejt.

But, like I said, this is a way for us to maximize our vote, by appealing to all sections of Atlasia. I certainly wouldn't want us to run too few candidates.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I see Hashie's point here...I would personally prefer an internal party mechanism on running a single-candidate, or two at most - I can see lots of opportunities for tactical voting from opposition parties.

While it might be more 'democratic' to let as many run as possible, I'm not entirely sure of the long-term wisdom of it.

I understand, huggy-lovey, progressive party etc etc.... but in the early stages of a new party, I think there's nothing wrong with showing a unified front and instilling a bit of party discipline.

I'm happy to respect whatever the party wants on this, but I think this election is a good chance to get our national presence established and we can't take the risk of overloading the ballot and having less predictable voting patterns.

It's Kalwejt.

But, like I said, this is a way for us to maximize our vote, by appealing to all sections of Atlasia. I certainly wouldn't want us to run too few candidates.

Ok....

I don't see it as a way to maximise votes, the more candidates we have, our vote is spread thinner, it relies on everyone voting in a way that will benefit us, we need as many first and second preferences as we can. We can't guarantee random voting patterns feeding into other candidates.

I would prefer concentrating our vote on two candidates at most...

There are as many negatives here as positives in my view, but as I said, I'll stand by whatever the view of the party is, and I think we should consider putting this to a 24-hour vote.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I kind of agree with polnut. I think it's absolutely fantastic to see a bunch of people interested in running, but the UDL just formed and although we must be as open and democratic as possible, if we're to survive, we also need to be smart.

I don't want the UDL to be seem as a party that any left-winger can drop into and then expect to get support of the entire party. We may be a party with a, hopefully, refreshing style, but we also need to expect people to, well, be in it for the party, and not as a group of people who are here to vote for them just because they hopped on the bandwagon.

[Хahar 🤔]

The thing is, the system we use isn't Borda count, it's STV. First and second preferences aren't really necessary. If one of the candidates doesn't gain traction, then the votes will flow fully to one that does.

Especially since we're a new party and we don't know how strong we are, I don't want to take any chances when it comes to running too few candidates.

[Marokai Backbeat]

The thing is, the system we use isn't Borda count, it's STV. First and second preferences aren't really necessary. If one of the candidates doesn't gain traction, then the votes will flow fully to one that does.

Especially since we're a new party and we don't know how strong we are, I don't want to take any chances when it comes to running too few candidates.

Fair enough. As long as we stick together for the most part I suppose it won't harm us much.

[Sbane]

Gotta agree with Marokai and Polnut. We don't necessarily have to discourage anyone from running, but we as a party should decide on two candidates to support for our first and second preference (but of course party members can vote however they want). And to accomplish that we need a primary.

[Purple State]

This is essentially a debate between the DA model and the original RPP/JCP model. Do we simply open it up to anyone to run and let each candidate capitalize on their own cross-party relationships or do we work strategically as a party to "triangulate" the necessary votes, if you will.

I think the experience of the DA proves that there is little harm in running numerous candidates, as the weak will be eliminated and their votes will pass to those who were better able to bring in cross-party votes. There are, of course, potential complications to this, but generally I don't think we need to focus so singularly on elections. The primary purpose of this game is to have fun, so why discourage people from running?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Can I put this to votes ?

Motion

1. The UDL shall run two candidates for December 2010 Senate elections.
2. These two candidates shall be determined through Instant Runoff Voting during a Party Primary.
3. Any candidate not taking part to the primary shall not receive any endorsement from the UDL. Any candidate taking part to the primary shall drop out of the race if he isn't among the two frontrunners.
4. The UDL Primary shall be held 24 hours after the passage of this motion. It shall last for 48 hours.

Feel free to propose any modification.

[Purple State]

Can I put this to votes ?

Motion

1. The UDL shall run two candidates for December 2010 Senate elections.
2. These two candidates shall be determined through Instant Runoff Voting during a Party Primary.
3. Any candidate not taking part to the primary shall not receive any endorsement from the UDL. Any candidate taking part to the primary shall drop out of the race if he isn't among the two frontrunners.
4. The UDL Primary shall be held 24 hours after the passage of this motion. It shall last for 48 hours.

Feel free to propose any modification.

Not a bad idea to let the party decide. I will oppose the motion, but I support the efforts to bring the party's voice to bear on the issue.

I would change the third clause to say: "Any candidate not taking part in the UDL primary shall not receive a first or second place endorsement from the Party."

That allows us to run multiple candidates, but indicate who our top preferences are and also doesn't prevent us from endorsing other parties' candidates in third, fourth and fifth during the eventual endorsements.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Ok then.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

Can I put this to votes ?

Motion

1. The UDL shall run two candidates for December 2010 Senate elections.
2. These two candidates shall be determined through Instant Runoff Voting during a Party Primary.
3. Any candidate not taking part to the primary shall not receive any endorsement from the UDL. Any candidate taking part to the primary shall drop out of the race if he isn't among the two frontrunners.
4. The UDL Primary shall be held 24 hours after the passage of this motion. It shall last for 48 hours.

Feel free to propose any modification.

Two replaced with Three, and applies to all at-large elections in the future as well.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Motion

1. The UDL shall run two candidates for December 2010 Senate elections.
2. These two candidates shall be determined through Instant Runoff Voting during a Party Primary.
3. Any candidate not taking part to the primary shall not receive any endorsement from the UDL. Any candidate taking part to the primary shall drop out of the race if they aren't among the two frontrunners.
4. The UDL Primary shall be held immediately after the passage of this motion. It shall last for 48 hours.


- My proposed changes in bold, if we're going to do this, way as well do it now.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Motion

1. The UDL shall run two candidates for December 2010 Senate elections.
2. These two candidates shall be determined through Instant Runoff Voting during a Party Primary.
3. Any candidate not taking part to the primary shall not receive any endorsement from the UDL. Any candidate taking part to the primary shall drop out of the race if they aren't among the two frontrunners.
4. The UDL Primary shall be held immediately after the passage of this motion. It shall last for 48 hours.


- My proposed changes in bold, if we're going to do this, way as well do it now.

That's right, I'm fine with this version.

I have to reject Teddy's amendment because 3 is still too much for now. For future elections, things could be different.

[ilikeverin]

I still oppose this measure; though primaries may be an interesting idea, in reality, Atlasian elections are such that running more candidates can't really hurt us.