NationStates Jolt Archive


NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform

Dissonant Cognition
04-10-2006, 19:34
NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform

http://artfiles.art.com/images/-/Norman-Rockwell/Freedom-Of-Speech-Poster-Card-C10231137.jpeg (http://www.best-norman-rockwell-art.com/norman-rockwell-saturday-evening-post-article-1943-02-20-freedom-of-speech.html)
(Click the picture to learn about Norman Rockwell and the meaning of this particular work)

In response to the concerns and support voiced by members of the Free Republic (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11763716&postcount=104), Defenderist (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11763749&postcount=105), and Human (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764098&postcount=111) Rights (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764568&postcount=118) parties to issues raised regarding the validity of the current NS General I thought we should try to officially organize around the issue of electoral reform (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11764071&postcount=109). Thus, the NS General Coalition for Electoral Reform.

At this point, the purpose of this thread is to collect support, as well as to organize, debate, and discuss positions and ideas concerning electoral reform, and other issues in that regard. The following is a list of ideas to pursue. Note that most of these ideas where originally raised by Kyronea, a member of the Human Rights party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11763999&postcount=106) (while the last point is my own addition), and that I repeat them here simply to provide a more visible location for discussion:


Increase the size of the Parliament from 25 seats to 35 seats, thereby allowing for the representation of more parties.
Reject the results of the current (4th) election as tainted by confusing procedure (including people mistakenly registering their vote in an "unofficial" poll rather than in the proper official vote), and call new elections.
Distribute the expanded seating (10 seats) among parties that fail to reach the 4% electoral threshold, thereby allowing for representation of all parties, and therefore of all the people, in the Parliament.
Implement the last item as a stepping stone toward elimination of the electoral threshold of 4% entirely.


As far as governance of the Coalition is concerned, barring a member's implementing and hosting a system similar to Pure Metal's which is capable of tracking and eliminating vote cheating (indeed, it is a most excellent model to emulate), I should think that the next best way to make decisions is via a vote of party leaders (those who created the individual party threads, thus initiating the existance of said parties). As such, the Coalition would essentially take the form of a representative federation of concerned parties. I would prefer a system of direct "one member, one person, one vote"-type governance involving all individual members of the Coalition, but the polling and other methods provided by the forum software does not prevent exploition of puppets or other problems. The overall aim of focusing on party leadership is to maximize accountability and prevent cheating in any votes and other decisions the Coalition makes. I would strongly encourage, nonetheless, a striving for consensus decision making, in the Coalition and among the individual member parties, instead of relying on voting for every decision. Again, the idea is to make the best of a less than optimal situation.

Obviously, none of the above is absolutely set in stone; discussion, debate, suggestions, and all else are welcomed and strongly encouraged. As is membership and support of any and all concerned parties or individual party members.

Register your support/membership here in this thread (also provide a link to your party thread for inclusion in the member/supporter list), and let the struggle for more free, fair, and transparent elections begin! :D

------------------
Members/Supporters:

Members/Supporters Within Parliament:

Human Rights Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499165):
Kinda Sensible People
Kyronea
Neo Undelia
Vetalia

Other Members/Supporters:

Autonomist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499288):
Delator
Dissonant Cognition

Defenderist Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=11705166#post11705166):
Minaris

Free Republic Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499170):
Greill

Libertarian Party (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=499169):
Wilgrove
Kinda Sensible people
05-10-2006, 03:28
I am joining this coalition. I hope that the rest of the Human Rights party will follow me.
Vittos the City Sacker
05-10-2006, 03:31
What are you hoping to accomplish?
Wilgrove
05-10-2006, 03:40
I agree and support this proposal!
Neo Undelia
05-10-2006, 03:41
Why the fuck not?
Count me in. Certainly can’t hurt anything.
Minaris
05-10-2006, 03:50
I, Minaris, as founder, leader, and representative of The Defenderist Party, do hereby support this caolition's aims and hereby expresses a desire to join.
Kyronea
05-10-2006, 06:04
I am joining this coalition. I hope that the rest of the Human Rights party will follow me.

Considering I suggested these changes in the first place, I think it's clear where I stand.
Dissonant Cognition
05-10-2006, 06:21
Here's an idea: what is the possibility of a coalition of parties registering and running as a party itself in the next elections? It is my understanding that membership in multiple parties is not necessarily forbidden. Thus, individuals can retain membership in their current parties while also supporting an "NS General Electoral Reform Party," or something like that, which takes the proposed reforms as its platform (although it would have to be expanded to meet the "10 lines" requirement.)

Edit: Has the Human Rights Party begun working on naming potential MPs for Parliament? These individuals will be the Coalition's representatives to the Parliament, of course.
Delator
05-10-2006, 06:23
As a member of the Autonomist Party, I support the OP proposal, and I hope that a suitable solution to the issue can be found.
Ariddia
05-10-2006, 15:38
Increase the size of the Parliament from 25 seats to 35 seats, thereby allowing for the representation of more parties.

Why not. If there are enough people involved to fill 35 seats, that shouldn't be a problem. The number of seats has never been set in stone, and I would encourage concerned MPs to raise the issue in the Parliament which will open soon.


Reject the results of the current (4th) election as tainted by confusing procedure (including people mistakenly registering their vote in an "unofficial" poll rather than in the proper official vote), and call new elections.

I maintain that someone would have to have been lazy and/or downright dumb (probably both) to make that mistake. The link to the voting site was clearly indicated, and bolded, in the opening line of the opening post. If people can't be bothered to even glance at bolded text in the opening line of the OP, they have no business complaining.

Plus, the poll options merged several parties, which made it crystal clear this could not be the official vote.


Distribute the expanded seating (10 seats) among parties that fail to reach the 4% electoral threshold, thereby allowing for representation of all parties, and therefore of all the people, in the Parliament.

Were there to be 35 seats, the threshhold would automatically (mathematically) be lowered to 2.86%. Any party unable to obtain that many votes clearly has little or no support.

As a reminder, 4% is currently equivalent to one seat. A party which fails to reach 4% of the vote has mathematically failed to secure a seat; there's nothing arbitrary or discriminatory about it. If you go around giving seats to parties which have virtually no popular support (especially via the method you suggest), you would grossly tilt Parliament's balance of power towards parties without popular support - which would be extremely undemocratic.

To put it another way, there is no reason why a party with 5.7% of the vote should get one seat while a party with 0.9% gets two seats allotted to it from your ten-seat surplus.

Historically, after the first election, I rounded results in such a way that parties with less than 4% were admitted into Parliament. There was a huge protest against that measure, hence the current rule.


Implement the last item as a stepping stone toward elimination of the electoral threshold of 4% entirely.


It exists for a reason. See above.
Vetalia
05-10-2006, 15:40
I am joining this coalition. I hope that the rest of the Human Rights party will follow me.

Seconded. I support this too.
Greill
05-10-2006, 16:35
I am all for this. Put my name too.
Vittos the City Sacker
05-10-2006, 17:02
As someone who has participated in all of these elections and followed the debate as to how to block puppet voting, I don't think many of the gripes this group has are that valid.

The problems with this system have nothing to do with the voting process, rather it has everything to do with the irrelevancy of the parliament. Until you give the voters a reason to care about the parliament, you will have spam parties that ruin the seating distribution, and actual voters whose votes matter little more than that of puppets.

I maintain that someone would have to have been lazy and/or downright dumb (probably both) to make that mistake. The link to the voting site was clearly indicated, and bolded, in the opening line of the opening post. If people can't be bothered to even glance at bolded text in the opening line of the OP, they have no business complaining.

Plus, the poll options merged several parties, which made it crystal clear this could not be the official vote.

The addition of an unofficial poll was a huge mistake. I imagine that most posters didn't really care about the parliament, and therefore didn't puch much effort into reading the first post. Since the poll's title was "Which party do you support" or something similar, it is quite possible that many people only saw the poll and either a)assumed they were voting with that poll, or b)didn't think there was an official vote going on.
Ariddia
05-10-2006, 17:09
As someone who has participated in all of these elections and followed the debate as to how to block puppet voting, I don't think many of the gripes this group has are that valid.

Indeed. PM has neatly ironed out most of the the problems there were in previous elections.


The problems with this system have nothing to do with the voting process, rather it has everything to do with the irrelevancy of the parliament. Until you give the voters a reason to care about the parliament, you will have spam parties that ruin the seating distribution, and actual voters whose votes matter little more than that of puppets.


True. Perhaps if Parliament actually becomes active and discusses serious issues, silly parties will lose interest.

[/quote]
The addition of an unofficial poll was a huge mistake. I imagine that most posters didn't really care about the parliament, and therefore didn't puch much effort into reading the first post. Since the poll's title was "Which party do you support" or something similar, it is quite possible that many people only saw the poll and either a)assumed they were voting with that poll, or b)didn't think there was an official vote going on.[/QUOTE]

*shrugs* I'm not all that concerned, although in retrospect you're probably right. Someone asked for a poll, and at the time I didn't see it as a problem...
Praetonia
05-10-2006, 17:56
This is an organisation of sour eggs complaining about an election system because it didn't happen to favour them. Ignore them. Democracy is about giving the populace the representatives they choose, not ensuring that the prospective representatives' feelings are not hurt at the expense of the right of the populace to that choice.
Dissonant Cognition
05-10-2006, 18:00
Democracy is about giving the populace the representatives they choose...

Exactly. So support measures aimed at expanding the size of the Parliament, allowing for greater participation of other parties, and, therefore, giving more of the populace the representatives that they choose. Giving more people more representation. Such would be highly democratic, wouldn't it?
Dissonant Cognition
05-10-2006, 18:26
This was originally posted in the Free Republic Party thread, but since it is also relevant here...

I would be supremely interested to hear what you mean by "voting irregularities".

I've been pointing them out almost constantly for the past couple of days in the "UNOFFICIAL poll" thread, mainly having to do with placing an unofficial poll in the same thread as that which links to the official vote. Such placement serving the purpose of confusing new voters, or those not well familiar with the NS General electoral processes (including myself, as I assumed momentarily that the "unofficial" poll represented the official vote in multiple stages), while more experienced voters (who are likely to be members of older, more established parties) are less likely to make such a mistake.
Kinda Sensible people
05-10-2006, 22:46
Edit: Has the Human Rights Party begun working on naming potential MPs for Parliament? These individuals will be the Coalition's representatives to the Parliament, of course.

Not yet. I hope to bring it up once we know how many seats we have.
Ariddia
05-10-2006, 22:58
I've been pointing them out almost constantly for the past couple of days in the "UNOFFICIAL poll" thread, mainly having to do with placing an unofficial poll in the same thread as that which links to the official vote. Such placement serving the purpose of confusing new voters, or those not well familiar with the NS General electoral processes (including myself, as I assumed momentarily that the "unofficial" poll represented the official vote in multiple stages), while more experienced voters (who are likely to be members of older, more established parties) are less likely to make such a mistake.

Ah. Well, if it's just that, I've already told you what I think of anyone who'd have got it wrong.

If you look at the results page, incidentally, you'll see new parties doing very well.
Ariddia
05-10-2006, 23:02
Democracy is about giving the populace the representatives they choose, not ensuring that the prospective representatives' feelings are not hurt at the expense of the right of the populace to that choice.

Indeed. The system is designed to be absolutely representative. Only parties failing to secure a number of votes equivalent to one seat do not enter Parliament.
Dissonant Cognition
05-10-2006, 23:19
Not yet. I hope to bring it up once we know how many seats we have.

OK. I posted an invitation to join in the Freedom, Environment, and Science Party thread too, since I think they are also projected to win seats. I was thinking about doing the same in the Democratic Socialist Party thread, but it doesn't appear that party is very active anymore (?).
Dissonant Cognition
06-10-2006, 02:32
Ah. Well, if it's just that, I've already told you what I think of anyone who'd have got it wrong.


Yes, we're all aware of the contempt that members of the UDCP seem to feel toward the voting public.



If people are too lazy to actually glance at the opening line of the opening post...

You'd have to be pretty damn stupid to think it's the official election.


Apparently mistakes made by those conducting the election somehow make the voter "lazy" and "stupid."
Praetonia
06-10-2006, 19:03
Exactly. So support measures aimed at expanding the size of the Parliament, allowing for greater participation of other parties, and, therefore, giving more of the populace the representatives that they choose. Giving more people more representation. Such would be highly democratic, wouldn't it?
Expanding Parliament is acceptable, to a point. But:

1) That is not all you want to do
2) You get to the stage, eventually, where there are almost as many seats as candidates.
Philosopy
06-10-2006, 19:05
Exactly. So support measures aimed at expanding the size of the Parliament, allowing for greater participation of other parties, and, therefore, giving more of the populace the representatives that they choose. Giving more people more representation. Such would be highly democratic, wouldn't it?
Yeah, because giving parties that no one supports the same amount of power as those who were elected is so democratic. :rolleyes:
Dissonant Cognition
06-10-2006, 22:51
Yeah, because giving parties that no one supports the same amount of power as those who were elected is so democratic. :rolleyes:

You're right, that's not democratic. Which is why no one is calling for such a situation.

It is not granting more seats to parties having more popular support that is opposed. It is employing thresholds that keep entire parties out of the parliament at all, thereby severely harming their ability to gain the necessary support in the first place, which is opposed. By all means, if Party "X" gains enough votes so that it wins, for example 10 seats, then of course Party X is entitled to 10 seats. What we call for, however, is eliminating the threshold so that the smaller parties can have at least one seat and participate in parliament like any other. Those parties with greater electoral support will still command greater control of parliament, but smaller parties will still have an avenue for representing those that do support them, thereby increasing overall representation of the people.
Dissonant Cognition
06-10-2006, 22:55
2) You get to the stage, eventually, where there are almost as many seats as candidates.

Of course, in such a situation, representative government basically becomes pointless, as theoretically each individuals can have his own personal representative in the parliament. So, why not just do away with the middle man.

In short, such is the death of government of, for, and by disconnected politicians, and the birth of government of, for, and by the people.

I, personally, think such is only a good thing. :)
Ariddia
06-10-2006, 22:56
What we call for, however, is eliminating the threshold so that the smaller parties can have at least one seat and participate in parliament like any other. Those parties with greater electoral support will still command greater control of parliament, but smaller parties will still have an avenue for representing those that do support them, thereby increasing overall representation of the people.

The Defenderist Party got one vote, out of one hundred and fifty-one valid votes cast. That's 0.66% of the electorate. Are you seriously suggesting that should entitle the Defenderist Party to a seat in Parliament?
Vittos the City Sacker
06-10-2006, 22:56
I posted this in the MP naming thread, but it also belongs here:

Done and confirmed.

Which means... the number of seats is as follows:

New British Imperialist Party: 16.56% => 4 seats (3.44% away from +1)
Choose [Your Pogo Stick] Wisely Party: 15.89% => 4 seats (4.11% away from +1)
PUNKS AND PIRATES Party: 9.27% => 2 seats (2.73% away from +1)
United Democratic Communist Party: 9.27% => 2 seats (2.73% away from +1)
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents Alliance: 8.61% => 2 seats (3.39% away from +1)
Democratic Socialist Party: 7.95% => 2 seats (4.05% away from +1)
Human Rights Party: 7.28% => 2 seats (4.72% away from +1)
Freedom, Environment and Science Party: 5.30% => 1 seat (2.70% away from +1)
Religious Conservative Party: 4.64% => 1 seat (3.36% away from +1)
Libertarian Party: 3.31% => 0 seat
Autonomist Party: 2.65% => 0 seat
Free Republic Party: 2.65% => 0 seat
Opportunity & Fairness Meritocratic Party: 2.65% => 0 seat
Alcohol Party: 1.99% => 0 seat
Not Particularly Vicious Black Friday Afternoon Non-Marxist Revolutionary Party for the Reunification of Gondwanaland: 1.32% => 0 seat
Defenderist Party: 0.66% => 0 seat

Which accounts for 20 seats. We move on to rounding.

The Freedom, Environment and Science Party ist closest to obtaining an extra seat, and so gets one. Next come the PUNKS & PIRATES Party and the UDCP. Finally, on a very narrow margin, the RCP and MOBRA get the two remaining seats.

So, the final number of seats:

New British Imperialist Party: 4 seats
Choose [Your Pogo Stick] Wisely Party: 4 seats
PUNKS AND PIRATES Party: 3 seats
United Democratic Communist Party: 3 seats
Mole and Other Borrowing Rodents Alliance: 3 seats
Democratic Socialist Party: 2 seats
Human Rights Party: 2 seats
Freedom, Environment and Science Party: 2 seats
Religious Conservative Party: 2 seats

For a total of 25 seats.

Congratulations to all. Please indicate as soon as possible who your MPs will be.

It should be known that I supported the election against the complaints of members of my own party, but this rounding business is straight bullshit.

It is quite plain that the libertarian party was .69% away from +1 seat, that the Autonomist Party, the OFMP, and the Free Republic Party were 1.35% away from plus one seat, yet they were excluded from the extra seats for parties that were anywhere from 2.70% to 3.39% away from extra seats.

Is it any coincidence that 1.27% of the population that voted for the UDCP recieved a seat worth 4% of the vote, while four parties that totaled 11.26% of the voters recieved no representation, whatsoever?

I withdraw any endorsement or support I had previously made for this electoral system. Those in charge went forward with skewed results that stemmed from mistakes made by administrators, on the justification that a portion of the voters must have been "stupid" or "lazy", and then further skewed the results with an obviously defunct "rounding" system.

I call on anyone who hopes to see the NSG elections continue into the future with fair results, decline any chair offered to them by their party, acknowledge the illegitimacy of this parliamentary distribution, and demand open discussion resulting in a new, fair election.
Dissonant Cognition
06-10-2006, 23:14
Sickening as they are, these results are really not that surprising. The only purpose of the electoral threshold is to eliminate political competition (Libertarian, Autonomist, Free Republic, OFMP) while enhancing the power of larger parties. Such is done in the name of democracy, but the simple fact of that matter is that where some say the word "democracy" they really mean the phrase "exclusive club."

I would like to reform the system (indeed, I proposed running this Coalition as a political party for that exact purpose), but it appears that those parties most opposed to reform also happen to possess the most seats (gee whiz, I wonder why that could be?).
Dissonant Cognition
06-10-2006, 23:20
The Defenderist Party got one vote, out of one hundred and fifty-one valid votes cast. That's 0.66% of the electorate. Are you seriously suggesting that should entitle the Defenderist Party to a seat in Parliament?

No, I'm suggesting that the party's mere existance should entitle it to at least one seat in the Parliament. :)

But then we'd have to increase the size of Parliament by a whole 7 seats! :eek:


:rolleyes: :D
Ariddia
06-10-2006, 23:24
Sickening as they are, these results are really not that surprising. The only purpose of the electoral threshold is to eliminate political competition (Libertarian, Autonomist, Free Republic, OFMP) while enhancing the power of larger parties. Such is done in the name of democracy, but the simple fact of that matter is that where some say the word "democracy" they really mean the phrase "exclusive club."

I would like to reform the system (indeed, I proposed running this Coalition as a political party for that exact purpose), but it appears that those parties most opposed to reform also happen to possess the most seats (gee whiz, I wonder why that could be?).

See my reply in the other thread. Since VO has posted the same post to both, he can direct you to it. I really can't be bothered to repeat myself, not simply for the sake of demolishing baseless accusations. Anyone who can read knows that the notions "The only purpose of the electoral threshold is to eliminate political competition" and "those parties most opposed to reform also happen to possess the most seats" are absolute rubbish and blatantly untrue.
New Burmesia
06-10-2006, 23:36
I give my full support in a personal capacity and not as a member of the UDCP, on the idea that increasing the amount of Nationstates Parliament MPs to 35 and reducing the threshold would increase the amount of parties represented and proportionality, thus making it more representatives of the voters.

However:

*I reject the notion that the current Parliament should be rejected.

* I reject the notion that the 10 seats should be apportioned to the other parties. Instead, the current parliament should by consensus decide to reappoint the seats from the data provided at the last election.

*Finally, I reject the notion that the ballot was confusing, it was clear in all OPs that the link needed to be followed in order to vote.
Dissonant Cognition
07-10-2006, 06:26
There has already been a proposal by the New British Imperial Party to create further limits to access and participation of small parties in the NS General Parliament. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11772987&postcount=11)

My own response/criticisms are here. (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11773860&postcount=12)

As I have noted, the proposals, which would take effect with the next election, stands as a direct threat to small parties, including several already occupying the parliament:

Religous Conservative
Freedom, Environment, and Science
MOBRA

Even smaller parties, including the Autonomist Party, are threatened with being unable to even participate in elections, nevermind the parliament. The war against small parties threatens to escalate.

I recommend that the Human Rights Party beings working on building a coalition within parliament, including the parties with seats listed above, to oppose the proposals. Other small parties outside of parliament should assist in those efforts in whatever way possible.
Praetonia
07-10-2006, 11:33
Of course, in such a situation, representative government basically becomes pointless, as theoretically each individuals can have his own personal representative in the parliament. So, why not just do away with the middle man.

In short, such is the death of government of, for, and by disconnected politicians, and the birth of government of, for, and by the people.

I, personally, think such is only a good thing. :)
It results in people being ruled by a group of loud and angry minorities. It is anarchy.

Your proposals include a number of things that are illiberal and unrepresentative and have no place in a legitimate electoral system:

1) You want to dismiss the current parliament, denying the people their legitimate choice in the last election.

2) You want to distribute some seats which have the same standing of all others for fewer votes than all the others, resulting in overrepresentation for the least popular parties.

3) You almost certainly want to do this because your own party is unpopular and you want to be able to win seats without all the fuss and bother of actually having to persuading people to vote for you.

I have no objection to expanding parliament to a point (say, 50 seats maximum), but your other proposals must be rejected if the elections are to have any meaning at all. NBIP is not ashamed to stand in the vanguard of the fight for true democracy against unrepresentative 'redistribution' against the popular will.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 12:03
If we do have 50 or even 35 seats, the BS 4% thing will have to be done away with. During THIS election, 5 seats were left free because of it. 5 seats. That is just disappointing.

I say that percentage should equal seats (but, you have to get enough votes for a seat... and then the rounding would still occur). The 4% limit is undemocratic and is a way for MORBA, UDCP, and NBIP to ensure that they are the ones with actual power. (Wosre is the fact that MORBA is a joke party... but that is an issue for much, much later.)
Praetonia
07-10-2006, 12:10
The 4% limit is derived from dividing 100 by the number of seats. 100/25 = 4. 100 / 50 = 2. If you can't get 2% of the vote, you don't deserve a seat. 50 might even be too many, really. 100 (your proposal) is way too many - there are not 100 potential candidates who will actually do anything. Parliament will become unwieldy and useless. Britain, a country of 60,000,000 people, has only ~650 MPs.

But whatever is decided - even if we decide to keep everything as it is - it should be decided legitimately by Parliament, in Parliament.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 12:11
The 4% limit is derived from dividing 100 by the number of seats. 100/25 = 4. 100 / 50 = 2. If you can't get 2% of the vote, you don't deserve a seat. 50 might even be too many, really.

But whatever is decided - even if we decide to keep everything as it is - it should be decided legitimately by Parliament, in Parliament.

Remember the 5 seats that ROUNDING had to attain? How, exactly, is that justified?
Praetonia
07-10-2006, 12:14
They used to include all parties in rounding but it caused much larger protests by people who thought it was unfair for a party to get a seat without even having 4% of the vote.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 12:20
They used to include all parties in rounding but it caused much larger protests by people who thought it was unfair for a party to get a seat without even having 4% of the vote.

I still think that it makes no sense, but there was another way that it was done to make more sense, wherein the votes were proportioned to only be out of 100. It worked pretty good...
New Burmesia
07-10-2006, 13:16
Okay, from reading all of the above comments, I'd like to make the following compramise proposal:

1) This proposal would be adopted by the current Nationstates Parliament. This is in accordance with the current rules, and does not deny the voters their legitimate choice at the last election.

2) The Parliament would dissolve itself, but instead of running another election, the same electoral data would be used to determine seats for the next Parliament.

3) Parliament (and this is the importanr bit) would be elected by either the D'hondt system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method) or the Sainte-Lague system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method) (click on the links for a description) which are both used worldwide in party list systems like the NS parliament is elected on. A threshold would be abolished, instead ensuring that parties have the support of three members to prevent a proliferation of small parties.

Furthermore, I would also propose that there would be a section, if possible, under Sound & Fury for the NS parliament. One of the biggest hurdles to the work of Parliament, I found when I was a UDCP MP, was that it was difficult for 25 MPs to work their way through a thread when there are hundereds of other more popular threads. A section specifically for the NationStates Parliament would help solve this problem and help prevent it from becoming dead.

Hope it helps.

EDIT: I can do both forms of PR on Excel, or find a site that has downloadable tables to do that.
Minaris
07-10-2006, 13:25
Okay, from reading all of the above comments, I'd like to make the following compramise proposal:

1) This proposal would be adopted by the current Nationstates Parliament. This is in accordance with the current rules, and does not deny the voters their legitimate choice at the last election.

2) The Parliament would dissolve itself, but instead of running another election, the same electoral data would be used to determine seats for the next Parliament.

3) Parliament (and this is the importanr bit) would be elected by either the D'hondt system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method) or the Sainte-Lague system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method) (click on the links for a description) which are both used worldwide in party list systems like the NS parliament is elected on. A threshold would be abolished, instead ensuring that parties have the support of three members to prevent a proliferation of small parties.

Furthermore, I would also propose that there would be a section, if possible, under Sound & Fury for the NS parliament. One of the biggest hurdles to the work of Parliament, I found when I was a UDCP MP, was that it was difficult for 25 MPs to work their way through a thread when there are hundereds of other more popular threads. A section specifically for the NationStates Parliament would help solve this problem and help prevent it from becoming dead.

Hope it helps.

EDIT: I can do both forms of PR on Excel, or find a site that has downloadable tables to do that.

I agree with the proposal.
Vittos the City Sacker
07-10-2006, 13:55
(Wosre is the fact that MORBA is a joke party... but that is an issue for much, much later.)

We are all "joke" parties. If we are going to petition for full inclusion, we must be consistent with it. This 4% business was apparently instituted to keep joke parties out (I can't find that discussion), and you see how that worked for us.
Praetonia
07-10-2006, 15:44
I think we should have first past the post. And rotten boroughs.
Dissonant Cognition
07-10-2006, 20:48
It results in people being ruled by a group of loud and angry minorities.


Rule by the people, each individual person being the smallest minority, in other words. As opposed to entrenched political parties with their own agendas.


1) You want to dismiss the current parliament, denying the people their legitimate choice in the last election.


But the current parliament is the product of an election characterized by questionable practices, including confusion between "unofficial" polls and the official vote. As such, I call for nothing more than the protection of the people and their legitimate choice by undoing and removing said practices.


2) You want to distribute some seats which have the same standing of all others for fewer votes than all the others, resulting in overrepresentation for the least popular parties.


All I call for is one single seat for such parties. Those parties that win higher percentages of the vote are of course entitled to more seats. As such, the provision of minimal representation is hardly giving smaller parties "the same standing as all others." And at any rate, securing and protecting the voice of the minority, against the whims of the majority, is a key element in checking the power of any government, and as such is exemplary of the highest liberal and democratic ideals.


3) You almost certainly want to do this because your own party is unpopular and you want to be able to win seats without all the fuss and bother of actually having to persuading people to vote for you.


Or you most certainly oppose the proposals because the party you choose (NBIP), which happens to possess the most seats and thus has the most to gain from tainted elections results, stands to have its power checked; you would prefer to avoid the fuss of conducting elections properly because that would get in the way of your own party's power (as well as the constitutional proposal put forward by said party for the purpose of enhancing said power (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11773876&postcount=33)). Nevermind that your theory as to my motovations does not explain the Human Rights Party's support for the Coalition for Electoral Reform.

See, making up conspiracy theories is easy. Now, lets just discuss the proposals/issues instead, shall we?
Vittos the City Sacker
07-10-2006, 21:28
Okay, from reading all of the above comments, I'd like to make the following compramise proposal:

1) This proposal would be adopted by the current Nationstates Parliament. This is in accordance with the current rules, and does not deny the voters their legitimate choice at the last election.

2) The Parliament would dissolve itself, but instead of running another election, the same electoral data would be used to determine seats for the next Parliament.

3) Parliament (and this is the importanr bit) would be elected by either the D'hondt system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%27Hondt_method) or the Sainte-Lague system (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sainte-Lagu%C3%AB_method) (click on the links for a description) which are both used worldwide in party list systems like the NS parliament is elected on. A threshold would be abolished, instead ensuring that parties have the support of three members to prevent a proliferation of small parties.

Furthermore, I would also propose that there would be a section, if possible, under Sound & Fury for the NS parliament. One of the biggest hurdles to the work of Parliament, I found when I was a UDCP MP, was that it was difficult for 25 MPs to work their way through a thread when there are hundereds of other more popular threads. A section specifically for the NationStates Parliament would help solve this problem and help prevent it from becoming dead.

Hope it helps.

EDIT: I can do both forms of PR on Excel, or find a site that has downloadable tables to do that.

I have absolutely no problem with these implementations.

However, may I ask everyone who opposes the dismissal of these results, do you think that this election proceeded in the best way possible, in terms of confusion the voting method caused? Do you see no reason why having a poll at the top of the page with a list of parties and title asking "Which party do you support?" might cause confusion amongst some voters, especially when considering that all past elections have been conducted with on-site polls?

Furthermore, what would be the problems of having another election in a couple of days?
Minaris
08-10-2006, 04:21
I have absolutely no problem with these implemenations.

The Defenderist Party supports the motion as well.
Praetonia
08-10-2006, 11:31
Rule by the people, each individual person being the smallest minority, in other words. As opposed to entrenched political parties with their own agendas.
No, what you will get is small groups of people having a disproporationaly large amount of power due to your biasing the system in their favour. That is not democracy.

But the current parliament is the product of an election characterized by questionable practices, including confusion between "unofficial" polls and the official vote. As such, I call for nothing more than the protection of the people and their legitimate choice by undoing and removing said practices.
The only legitimate forum for changing the electoral process can be Parliament itself. What you ask is that Parliament be disbanded and its sovereignty be deferred to yourself and those who support you. The only practical means by which we can guage the opinions of the people on the electoral system is and can only be Parliament.

All I call for is one single seat for such parties.
You call for a single seat for parties that have not earned sufficient votes to be entitled to a single seat under a representative system.

Those parties that win higher percentages of the vote are of course entitled to more seats. As such, the provision of minimal representation is hardly giving smaller parties "the same standing as all others."
Strawman. I did not say it gave small parties the same standing as all the others, I said it gave small parties greater standing than their share of the vote would entitle them to under a representative system.

And at any rate, securing and protecting the voice of the minority, against the whims of the majority, is a key element in checking the power of any government, and as such is exemplary of the highest liberal and democratic ideals.
So your definition of a representative democracy is a government system which explicitly tries to be unrepresentative? You are a very strange person.

Or you most certainly oppose the proposals because the party you choose (NBIP), which happens to possess the most seats and thus has the most to gain from tainted elections results, stands to have its power checked; you would prefer to avoid the fuss of conducting elections properly because that would get in the way of your own party's power (as well as the constitutional proposal put forward by said party for the purpose of enhancing said power (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11773876&postcount=33)). Nevermind that your theory as to my motovations does not explain the Human Rights Party's support for the Coalition for Electoral Reform.

See, making up conspiracy theories is easy.
The difference is that my party became the largest party because it had the greatest share of the vote. You want your party to be given a seat even though it did not get enough of the vote to be deserving of a seat. The situations are not analogous, and there is clearly an alterior motive in your position. As you said yourself, you believe that small parties should be given an unfair advantage so that they need fewer votes to gain a seat than larger parties. This is something that I, and NBIP, oppose and always shall oppose, because it is anti-democratic and results in an unrepresentative legislature.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 15:16
However, may I ask everyone who opposes the dismissal of these results, do you think that this election proceeded in the best way possible, in terms of confusion the voting method caused? Do you see no reason why having a poll at the top of the page with a list of parties and title asking "Which party do you support?" might cause confusion amongst some voters, especially when considering that all past elections have been conducted with on-site polls?

Furthermore, what would be the problems of having another election in a couple of days?

Anyone?
Philosopy
08-10-2006, 16:51
Anyone?
If a newspaper printed a telephone poll before a General Election saying 'which party do you support?', would someone who thought that was the real election be able to claim that their rights had been infringed?

Electoral processes do not protect against idiocy.

You are also assuming saintly behaviour on the part of the accusers here. I think a far more likely explanation for their mysterious 'support' in the unofficial poll is puppet voting, and as such the PM Method is the fairest Parliament ever elected.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 17:00
If a newspaper printed a telephone poll before a General Election saying 'which party do you support?', would someone who thought that was the real election be able to claim that their rights had been infringed?

If elections had always been carried out through newspaper telephone polls, then yes, I would say that ample confusion would have been caused to strip some voters of their right to a free vote.

Electoral processes do not protect against idiocy.

I can tell what you think of democracy from the legislation you recently proposed, but you needn't insult the voters.

You are also assuming saintly behaviour on the part of the accusers here. I think a far more likely explanation for their mysterious 'support' in the unofficial poll is puppet voting, and as such the PM Method is the fairest Parliament ever elected.

I do prefer the PM Method over on-site polling, but I also say that, if there is any significant possibility that a confusing display of the voting method caused some votes to not be counted, we should take it upon ourselves to correct the problem and not proceed until we do.
Philosopy
08-10-2006, 17:08
If elections had always been carried out through newspaper telephone polls, then yes, I would say that ample confusion would have been caused to strip some voters of their right to a free vote.
And if the poll carried the words 'This is an unofficial poll' and the text all around it said 'this is an unofficial poll', what then?

You would very much struggle to prove liability on the part of the newspaper then.

Oh, and you've still not addressed puppet votes, which is especially relevant as you have no evidence whatsoever that this actually confused anyone.

I can tell what you think of democracy from the legislation you recently proposed, but you needn't insult the voters.
And we can tell how mature you are from this joint tantrum you've been recently throwing about not being elected, but you needn't insult our intellegence by suggesting it's something else.

I do prefer the PM Method over on-site polling, but I also say that, if there is any significant possibility that a confusing display of the voting method caused some votes to not be counted, we should take it upon ourselves to correct the problem and not proceed until we do.
Again, you have no evidence whatsoever that this actually confused anyone.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 17:24
And if the poll carried the words 'This is an unofficial poll' and the text all around it said 'this is an unofficial poll', what then?

The poll did not carry those words, it only said "Which party do you support?", it required the voter to scroll down to actually see the real instructions.

It seems very likely that one or both of these things happened:

1. Voters saw the title of the thread saying "Unofficial Poll" with no mention of an actual vote, and assumed it was another "Who would you vote for threads" and weren't bothered to take it seriously.

2. Voters assumed that, like the previous three elections, voting took place on-site, as the immediately viewable poll did not state otherwise, and assumed that they were placing their votes by merely choosing an option on the poll.

Oh, and you've still not addressed puppet votes, which is especially relevant as you have no evidence whatsoever that this actually confused anyone.

So I have to disprove all other possibilities to establish that the voting method may have been flawed? How am I supposed to disprove puppet voting?

All I can do is point out the number of ways that confusion could have occurred and hope that this parliament does the correct thing and erase all reasonable doubt.

And we can tell how mature you are from this joint tantrum you've been recently throwing about not being elected, but you needn't insult our intellegence by suggesting it's something else.

At least you are insulting me now, instead of the voters.

And furthermore, I do not stand to get a seat, anyway.
Jello Biafra
08-10-2006, 18:43
I agree with at least some of the proposals mentioned, in my personal opinion, and not as a representative of the UDCP.

Of course, in such a situation, representative government basically becomes pointless, as theoretically each individuals can have his own personal representative in the parliament. So, why not just do away with the middle man.

In short, such is the death of government of, for, and by disconnected politicians, and the birth of government of, for, and by the people.

I, personally, think such is only a good thing. :)I agree with the principle that direct democracy is better than representative democracy, however NS is already perfectly suited for direct democracy. It seems to me that one of the things that the Parliament accomplished was doing something different, and is one of the reasons that I like the Parliament - it's different.

I have absolutely no problem with these implementations.

However, may I ask everyone who opposes the dismissal of these results, do you think that this election proceeded in the best way possible, in terms of confusion the voting method caused? Do you see no reason why having a poll at the top of the page with a list of parties and title asking "Which party do you support?" might cause confusion amongst some voters, especially when considering that all past elections have been conducted with on-site polls? I think that it may have caused a certain amount of confusion, however are voting errors the fault of the voter, or the instructions? I would agree that if this occurred to a large degree, then it's probably the instructions that are to blame, but if it's only a few voters, then the instructions aren't solely to blame.
With that said, I agree that they could have been clearer.

Furthermore, what would be the problems of having another election in a couple of days?The election we just had notified people weeks in advance, giving them plenty of time to get to their computers. While this might not be a problem for most of us, a voter who can only use the computer in the library once or twice a week would have a difficult time voting if the new election were to be held immediately.
New Burmesia
08-10-2006, 18:48
I have absolutely no problem with these implementations.
Cool.

However, may I ask everyone who opposes the dismissal of these results, do you think that this election proceeded in the best way possible, in terms of confusion the voting method caused?
I see no real problems.

Do you see no reason why having a poll at the top of the page with a list of parties and title asking "Which party do you support?" might cause confusion amongst some voters, especially when considering that all past elections have been conducted with on-site polls?
No, because the OP was explicit that you had to click a link to get to the actual poll. All people had to do was read.

Furthermore, what would be the problems of having another election in a couple of days?
People don't rerun elections because someone thought an exit poll was the actual election. The same applies here. It's unnecessary.
Dissonant Cognition
08-10-2006, 19:17
If a newspaper printed a telephone poll before a General Election saying 'which party do you support?', would someone who thought that was the real election be able to claim that their rights had been infringed?


That's a bad analogy; what actually happened was more like those conducting the election handing me two ballots at my voting place, one labeled "who do you support?" and the other labeled "who do you vote for?" The hypothetical "newspaper", however, is a completely independent party. Had those conducting these elections presented the "unofficial" poll and the official vote in two seperate threads, then your analogy would be more accurate, and my complaint baseless.

But that isn't what happened.


and as such the PM Method is the fairest Parliament ever elected.

But again, no one is complaining about the PM Method. No one is complaining about the ability to track voters and eliminate cheating. All of that is necessary, effective, and really quite great. What we are complaining about is that such a fantastic system was itself presented in a confusing manner by the failure to entirely seperate it from any "unofficial" poll. A fantastic and effective system was ruined when the poll workers handed the voter two ballots when they should have been distributing only one.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 19:48
I think that it may have caused a certain amount of confusion, however are voting errors the fault of the voter, or the instructions? I would agree that if this occurred to a large degree, then it's probably the instructions that are to blame, but if it's only a few voters, then the instructions aren't solely to blame.
With that said, I agree that they could have been clearer.

6 confused voters = one misallotted seat.
Jello Biafra
08-10-2006, 19:50
6 confused voters = one misallotted seat.Are we certain that 6 people were confused to the point where they didn't vote properly? I know someone in the Punks and Pirates Party was confused and asked the party what was happening, and eventually got it right.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 19:53
No, because the OP was explicit that you had to click a link to get to the actual poll. All people had to do was read.

Upon clicking on the thread, all one could see was "Which party do you support?" and a poll. That is probably enough to convince those that are not actually members of parties that they don't need to scroll down and look for any instructions.

People don't rerun elections because someone thought an exit poll was the actual election. The same applies here. It's unnecessary.

Professional electioneers no better than to give someone an exit poll with their election ballot, as it causes people to mistake one for the other.

I am very grateful to Arridia for all of the work he has done to maintain these elections, and PM's system is great, but I think the transition from our old style to the new setup was handled very poorly, and the wrong parties may have recieved seats.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 19:55
Are we certain that 6 people were confused to the point where they didn't vote properly? I know someone in the Punks and Pirates Party was confused and asked the party what was happening, and eventually got it right.

Of course I am not certain.

But it does seem that, if a poster who had followed this election enough to ally himself with a party beforehand was confused, then we can assume that posters who didn't follow that closely could have been confused and didn't bother to figure it out.
Jello Biafra
08-10-2006, 19:59
Of course I am not certain.

But it does seem that, if a poster who had followed this election enough to ally himself with a party beforehand was confused, then we can assume that posters who didn't follow that closely could have been confused and didn't bother to figure it out.Yes, I can agree with this. I suppose the distinction is that it's difficult to determine how much responsibility lies with the voter to ensure that zir ballot is cast properly.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 20:11
Yes, I can agree with this. I suppose the distinction is that it's difficult to determine how much responsibility lies with the voter to ensure that zir ballot is cast properly.

I don't even think it matters, as the British is firmly against any reform (let alone dismissal), Arridia is committed to the past election, and the only parties who have actually voice disapproval don't hold seats.
Krensonia
08-10-2006, 20:48
Let's say NSG was a real nation. If the people, or in this case, leaders of political parties wanted govermental reform. They can make a proposal for such things in the political process. However, we , the parties , represent the People. The people tell what they want by electing officials with similair views. All of the parties that support this motion, carry NO seats. Thus we, the people of NSG dont wan't those parties to influence the political process. And do not speak of Fraud or double voting. For there was an off-site poll which blocked this.

Your only argument is that people overlooked the off-site poll. Well.. That is THEIR own fault. We are not responsible for them not reading the first post.

Now the fact that only no-seat parties are complaining about the Elections makes me thinnk that you're just pissed you got no seats. And I can't blame you, for it is your purpose and goal to gain seats. However, so is it the purpose and goal of the other parties who HAVE gained seats.
Dissonant Cognition
08-10-2006, 21:20
All of the parties that support this motion, carry NO seats. ...Now the fact that only no-seat parties are complaining about the Elections makes me thinnk that you're just pissed you got no seats.

**points at the fact that the Human Rights Party possesses seats, as well as membership in the NS Coalition for Electoral Reform, and is the largest representative of said Coalition**

So much for that theory.
Kyronea
08-10-2006, 21:55
Alright, LISTEN, people. It is exactly this kind of senseless arguing that has prevented the previous Parliaments from being any sort of fun at all. Let's acknowledge two things:

1. The voting method was not as clear as it should have been, resulting in some votes not being counted.

2. Regardless, however, the voting is OVER. The results need to be accepted.

Now, I initially proposed the changes that set all of this into motion, and I still think that they are necessary for the NEXT ELECTION. But let us face the fact that the current election IS over, that we need to stop being Sore Losermen and just proceed through Parliament once all MPs are appointed. I would like for this Parliament--the first I've ever participated in--to actually be worthwhile, decent, and fun, as opposed to the mind numbing votingvotingvotingvoting crap the others were.

So please, can we stop arguing over it, and get to the real issues at hand?
Kinda Sensible people
08-10-2006, 21:59
Alright, LISTEN, people. It is exactly this kind of senseless arguing that has prevented the previous Parliaments from being any sort of fun at all. Let's acknowledge two things:

1. The voting method was not as clear as it should have been, resulting in some votes not being counted.

2. Regardless, however, the voting is OVER. The results need to be accepted.

Now, I initially proposed the changes that set all of this into motion, and I still think that they are necessary for the NEXT ELECTION. But let us face the fact that the current election IS over, that we need to stop being Sore Losermen and just proceed through Parliament once all MPs are appointed. I would like for this Parliament--the first I've ever participated in--to actually be worthwhile, decent, and fun, as opposed to the mind numbing votingvotingvotingvoting crap the others were.

So please, can we stop arguing over it, and get to the real issues at hand?

I agree that there are other issues to focus on, but I also would like to see election reform. The most important reforms we need to have are making sure that people understand that the election is held off of site, and maybe granting each party one vote to start with (it is, after all, also a game, and it's much more fun if everyone gets a seat to start. 3% of the vote is still between 3 and 6 people, which is more membership than many parties can claim).
Kyronea
08-10-2006, 22:04
I agree that there are other issues to focus on, but I also would like to see election reform. The most important reforms we need to have are making sure that people understand that the election is held off of site, and maybe granting each party one vote to start with (it is, after all, also a game, and it's much more fun if everyone gets a seat to start. 3% of the vote is still between 3 and 6 people, which is more membership than many parties can claim).
I do agree that election reform should be a part of it. All I'm trying to say is that we're heading down the path of making it the ONLY issue, which will once again render Parliament useless, as well as possibly bringing down moderator wrath upon it as they finally declare it spam, which I do NOT want to see happen in any way, shape, or form.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 22:06
Alright, LISTEN, people. It is exactly this kind of senseless arguing that has prevented the previous Parliaments from being any sort of fun at all. Let's acknowledge two things:

1. The voting method was not as clear as it should have been, resulting in some votes not being counted.

2. Regardless, however, the voting is OVER. The results need to be accepted.

Now, I initially proposed the changes that set all of this into motion, and I still think that they are necessary for the NEXT ELECTION. But let us face the fact that the current election IS over, that we need to stop being Sore Losermen and just proceed through Parliament once all MPs are appointed. I would like for this Parliament--the first I've ever participated in--to actually be worthwhile, decent, and fun, as opposed to the mind numbing votingvotingvotingvoting crap the others were.

So please, can we stop arguing over it, and get to the real issues at hand?


I agree, but it would be nothing if we declared a new election in a week or two and started anew. Since we have never had this much consistent and worthwhile input into the electoral process, I think it would be good to establish some ground rules and start over.
Kyronea
08-10-2006, 22:16
I agree, but it would be nothing if we declared a new election in a week or two and started anew. Since we have never had this much consistent and worthwhile input into the electoral process, I think it would be good to establish some ground rules and start over.

I am of mixed feelings about this suggestion. On one hand, it will essentially have rendered this entire electoral process up to this point irrelevant if we just hit the reset button. On the other hand, I would like to see a much fairer election.

But, I will have to say this: real countries can't just redo elections on a whim. So why should our model country be capable of doing so? No, we should simply use the suggestions in the next election, which should not be for many months yet.
New Burmesia
08-10-2006, 22:18
I agree, but it would be nothing if we declared a new election in a week or two and started anew. Since we have never had this much consistent and worthwhile input into the electoral process, I think it would be good to establish some ground rules and start over.

I agree, but rerunning the election so soon would be spammy and make little difference - statistically if people missed the actual ballot (and instead voted only on the poll) all parties would have lost the same proportion of votes, leaving the results unchanged.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 22:35
Even though I think those parties who had less members would recieve the worst of the voting irregularities (those parties would recieve more of their votes from casual voters, rather than parties like the Imperial, Punks and Pirates, and UDCP who had a large active collection of party members), I would be satisfied if we used a new allocation of seats applied to the recent vote.

Then once this is instituted, I would expect this to be the first issue discussed by the parliament.
Vittos the City Sacker
08-10-2006, 22:38
I am of mixed feelings about this suggestion. On one hand, it will essentially have rendered this entire electoral process up to this point irrelevant if we just hit the reset button. On the other hand, I would like to see a much fairer election.

It would not render any of the campaigning irrelevant, it would just render the voting, which was flawed, irrelevant.

But I have already stated that I would be satisfied with a new allotment of seats using the recent voting. Life is full of compromise.

Note that I am NOT a member of the Coalition for Electoral Reform.
Minaris
08-10-2006, 22:41
But, I will have to say this: real countries can't just redo elections on a whim. So why should our model country be capable of doing so?

The bolded says it all.
Kyronea
08-10-2006, 22:57
The bolded says it all.

I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. We all knew this was a model country from the start, that none of this had any true application in real life. It's for fun, and is much more educational than most such games, per se. It's why I heavily approve of roleplaying on forums, because that encourages a great deal of creativity and stimulates the mind, as does running a model Parliament on a political forum.
Minaris
08-10-2006, 22:57
I'm not entirely certain what you are getting at. We all knew this was a model country from the start, that none of this had any true application in real life. It's for fun, and is much more educational than most such games, per se. It's why I heavily approve of roleplaying on forums, because that encourages a great deal of creativity and stimulates the mind, as does running a model Parliament on a political forum.

I meant model as in ideal.
Kyronea
08-10-2006, 23:01
I meant model as in ideal.

Well, in that case, I would say an ideal country does its best to prevent constant repeat elections, as doing so essentially insults and degrades the whole point to an election.
Minaris
08-10-2006, 23:25
Well, in that case, I would say an ideal country does its best to prevent constant repeat elections, as doing so essentially insults and degrades the whole point to an election.

I meant ideal as in ideal democractically. :rolleyes:
Kyronea
09-10-2006, 08:45
I meant ideal as in ideal democractically. :rolleyes:
Indeed. Constant, nigh absurd elections would do two things:

1. It would render the voting population apathetic, likely decreasing the number of voters by a significant amount over a short period of time.

2. Render the country completely incapable of actually performing any real tasks, thus making the elections completely pointless.