Elegarth Posted February 20, 2015 Share Posted February 20, 2015 As it has been discussed in several threads and a fail proposal, we currently lack a set of strict guidelines on how should elected positions be handled by the HGA. The only actual guidelines that exists for such a thing, is the one relevant to the speaker of the HGA: 3. The members of the Regional Assembly, hereafter referred to as the RA, may hold nominations for the new Speaker for 3 days. Nominees may begin campaigning as soon as they have accepted their nomination. 4. Nominees for Speaker must satisfy the following criteria: a. They must have held a forum account for 1 month; b. They must have been a member of the RA for 2 weeks; 5. After the nomination period, a 5 day plurality vote shall be held in the RA to determine who the next Speaker shall be. There shall be the option for voting RA members to abstain. RA members are required to state their votes in posts for them to be counted. a. If there is only one accepted nomination, a consent vote shall follow the same principle of requiring a plurality vote. b. In the event of a tie, a run-off election shall be held. It is my opinion, since this system is simple enough, and has worked thus far, that we could simply extend or implement this in a manner that would allow it to be a general election guidelines. Since it is easier to start a discussion with a draft, here is what I present to you (without much specific care for legislative writing yet, since this is meant to be a first draft): General Election Guidelines Act 1. Any and all elected positions defined by the legislation of the HGA shall be elected following the guideliness in the General Election Guidelines Act. 2. The members of the Regional Assembly, hereafter referred to as the RA, may hold nominations for the open position for 3 days. Nominees may begin campaigning as soon as they have accepted their nomination. 3. Nominees for any position must satisfy the following criteria: a. They must have held a forum account for 1 month; b. They must have been a member of the RA for 2 weeks; c. Any other requirement explicitly stipulated by the law or act that governs the position to be elected; 4. After the nomination period, a 5 day plurality vote shall be held in the RA to determine who the election result. There shall be the option for voting RA members to abstain. RA members are required to state their votes in posts for them to be counted. Multiple positions can be voted for in the same election. a. If there is only one accepted nomination, a consent vote shall follow the same principle of requiring a plurality vote; b. In the event of a tie, a run-off election shall be held starting 3 days after the election results are given; the candidates tied up can campaign during this time but no other candidates are allowed to continue campaigning; 5. Only members of the RA at the start of the voting period are eligible to vote during the election; in case that a run-off election is required, new members who joined the RA after the original voting period will remain ineligible to vote. 6. The periods and election dates of eligible positions shall be dictated by the laws that create or govern those positions, and this act only describes and rules the election process to be held for those positions. 7. Article 1, of "The Role of the Speaker of the Regional Assembly Act" shall be modified as follows: a. Section 2 shall read "The Speaker of the RA will be elected following the guidelines established on the General Election Guidelines Act"; b. Sections 3 to 5 are rendered null and void; This is not a definitive draft, and all of it is open to discussion. Here is my reasoning for must of it: 1) Our community is one that does not usually feels comfortable with over-complex processes, and hence a streamlined simple method of holding elections should allow for an easier involvement of all members of the HGA. 2) There is no need to complicate the voting system in a community with the size of our at this point. 3) The General Election act should be general enough to allow to be refered by other acts that require to establish an election process, without needing to make ammends to it everytime a new position is created. I'll welcome your comments Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consular Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I like this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 I mostly agree with this. I understand your point about complex voting systems not being necessary; that's why I originally proposed the alternative vote and not a Condorcet method, although the latter would be my preference. However, plurality is not the most simple form of voting. As I've mentioned before, the approval vote is just as, if not more, simple than plurality voting. The approval vote is easily described as "Mark all the candidates you support. Candidate with the most votes wins." Because of its simplicity, it will encourage just as much participation in the HGA; in fact, studies show that in general, approval increases voter turnout greatly because it does not force voters to choose a lesser evil and because it is harder to spoil a ballot by accidentally marking more than one candidate. Even though it's simple, it tends to promote better results than first past the post; in general, although approval is not as effective a system as some others, it is much better than plurality and still easily understandable. As such, I've recommended it as a compromise between those who do not understand the alternative vote and find it too complex, and those who prefer good results representing most people's preferences over simplicity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consular Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 As much as you may dislike plurality voting, there's a reason it's incredibly widely used. Pestarzt and Little Sealand 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted February 21, 2015 Author Share Posted February 21, 2015 Cuz it is simple and straightforward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted February 21, 2015 Share Posted February 21, 2015 As much as you may dislike plurality voting, there's a reason it's incredibly widely used. That being that it was the first idea that somebody came up with, not any actual benefits of it as opposed to other voting systems. Cuz it is simple and straightforward. As noted, approval is just as simple and straightforward. One vote per candidate, yes/no, candidate with most votes wins. Alternative might be a little complicated, but approval is literally simple enough for a two-year old to get. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fantome Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 Regarding the voting system, I think there's a good compromise between alternative vote and plurality vote. And it's not complicated either. First of all you get three votes that you can freely award to the candidates, the only restriction being that you can't award more than two to the same person. If you only want to support one candidate, you wouldn't have to use your third vote. We're working with that system in a different political simulation and it has worked out very well so far. There is more diversity and you can honor good campaigns (or good work) better. Llamas 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestarzt Posted February 22, 2015 Share Posted February 22, 2015 As much as you may dislike plurality voting, there's a reason it's incredibly widely used. Preach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted February 24, 2015 Author Share Posted February 24, 2015 With no further comments, and considering there seems not to be wide support for a special voting method, I'll stick to the plurality vote. Hence without changes I'll like to move this to formal discussion, I'll require supporterst to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Consular Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 I second. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted February 25, 2015 Author Share Posted February 25, 2015 Thanks, I'll need 2 more supporters to move this to formal discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Sealand Posted February 25, 2015 Share Posted February 25, 2015 Thirded. Looks perfectly golden to me, we should look into Fan's system as well, see if it' combines the best of both worlds, and not the two evils. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pestarzt Posted February 27, 2015 Share Posted February 27, 2015 Fourth'd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted February 27, 2015 Author Share Posted February 27, 2015 This proposal is now in FORMAL DISCUSSION. No major changes can be done to the current form of the proposal and a voting can be requested as soon as 7 days of formal discussion. Since there isn't much input for discussion, I move we vote on this as soon as the 7 day period is met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted March 1, 2015 Share Posted March 1, 2015 I support Elegarth's motion. A vote after 7 days would be good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Feux Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 I support this. Is it possible to motion to vote sooner if support is so wide? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 I support this. Is it possible to motion to vote sooner if support is so wide? Unfortunately, no; It seems that the Formal/Informal discussion might not have been such a good idea, although our speaker is free to disagree with me on this. Elegarth 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted March 3, 2015 Author Share Posted March 3, 2015 It is being tested, as per complaints of people who thought our previous proposal hitting vote on 10 days was too soon. We can search for middle ground by trying Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Llamas Posted March 4, 2015 Share Posted March 4, 2015 It is being tested, as per complaints of people who thought our previous proposal hitting vote on 10 days was too soon. We can search for middle ground by trying Sure. It is the first time, but it's worth a try at least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Sealand Posted March 5, 2015 Share Posted March 5, 2015 Hey, if vote fails, its always back to the drawing board. I support to vote this Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 As per my proposition and the support of Arch, Pez, LS, Llamas and Feux this will be moved to vote as soon as the 7 days period of formal discussion ends, and since that period has already ended, then I will be moving this to vote within a few minutes! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elegarth Posted March 5, 2015 Author Share Posted March 5, 2015 Voting for this is open: http://www.westpacific.org/forums/index.php?/topic/1256-voting-open-general-election-guidelines-act/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts