How to do elections: Discussion here

[PinkyGen]

In game turns, aka not real life, our struggle for independence began in November. April will mark the 6 month point, and new elections will be held. The new government would presumbably take over for the May turn. I want these to be clean and fair, no foul play. They must also be simple, with no need for recounts.

Thus here is what I propose the rule is.
1. Voting is done in election thread.
2. Instead of voting in a poll, the voter must post in public who they are voting for. This avoids screwy things happening with the polls.
3. Elections are completed in a weeks time from the first posting of the election thread.

I know this means that our votes are public, but most of the people here know our views anyway. I would have prefered to keep votes private, but I do not want a re-hap like what happened last election.

Other than that, the system seems simple. We keep the same arithmatic rules as in the basic laws thread, and the Government is formed out of whomever can get or negotiate a majority in the knesset.

I intend to post the election thread after the March turn is done. This will give one game month turn for voting, the possible forming of a new government, and the appointment of people to new posts.

Comments, suggestions? Hannukah gelt for your beloved PM?

*cues the music* For if I am re-elected, a Sherman in every driveway and Hannukah gelt for every pot. Vote One Israel!!

[yaroslav]

The system is simple and looks great. However, if we want private vote I suggest this system:

Everyone that want to vote send a email to the ELECTION REFREE (I volunteer to do that) and to (using the CC field) the inspectors (One for each party). The votes are counted by the REFREE and the inspector can supervise the count.

[Nilat]

In this election, every minister position is re-elected?

[POTUS]

No, just the parties are chosen, then a coalition is formed to choose the ministers.

[Nilat]

ok

[Ben Kenobi]

I understand the concerns that prompt people to post whom they voted for, but I feel that this violates one of the primary rights in a free democracy. People should not have to confess whom they voted for, if they do not want other people to know. If they know that they must reveal their vote, this is going to affect the person they will end up voting for, since few want to vote for the losing side.

I suggest a compromise. People who have voted, ought to post in the thread, so we know who has voted. They should not have to reveal the contents of their vote publicly.

However, I do not see a way we can enforce this restriction, so any election would have to make this voluntary. If a person wanted to, he could still vote in our election polls, regardless of whether they post or not.

[EmuGod]

I say we pm the votes to an imprtial person such as Darius. This person will also be sent a list of who is eligible to vote and will count up the votes and post the results.

[PinkyGen]

Basically, we desire two things that unfortunately compete with each other. We desire fair and accountable elections, but we also desire that our votes be anonymous. By assuring total anonymity, we become less certain the election is fair. During the last election, we basically had to guess how many times Panag and his DL's voted and then discount those votes.

On the other hand, by making elections accountable, votes can no longer be perfectly anonymous. It's a tradeoff. We have to decide how much anonymity we want, versus certaintity that the election was fair.

For Emugod's suggestion, I want any impartial person to agree to do it before it gets considered as an option. An I would like to point out that Darius is not impartial, he is a member of One Israel.

I'm confused on what Kenobi is promoting. Any posting that you "voted" in a thread should at the mininum be mandatory, not voluntary. Elections still haves rules that must be followed, and this violates no one's rights. When I vote in elections, my precinct must cross my name off the list to be sure I do not vote again.
Assuming posting that you "voted" is mandatory, the system still pretty much assures anonyminity. It's weakness is that we can still be unsure how the votes actually went. I think it is highly likely that we will have more votes in the poll than people posting that they voted in the thread. This raises the question of who then who voted in the poll who should not have been voting?

My own proposed system assures fairness, but no anonymity. Kenobi is probably not just the only one who wants anonymity.

I think Yaro's system is the best compromise, provided he is willing to be the referee, and the party chairmen are prepared to receive the votes. I would trust Yaro to be pretty impartial, and the party chairmen can check to make sure it is. We lose some anonymity because four players know the votes, and these are the players who would be the most interested in knowing how people voted as well. But I feel this is the best way to maximize accountability and anonymity; it's the best deal we'll get. The system pretty much assures a fair vote, and we lose only some anonymity.

[yaroslav]

PinkyGen, two things:

-I'm willing to volunteer as the referee

-and please edit out the reference to Panag [We haven't any evidence him voting twice, do you remember ]

[Dr. Nick]

We haven't any evidence him voting twice, do you remember

We had his bloody confession.

[EmuGod]

The issue of panag and the possibility that he voted twice is long over. Don't mention it again please. (Remember Ming's last reaction to this)

[PinkyGen]

I am not attempting to redebate past actions. The problem is that there was such uncertaintity that such debate was possible, that a certain someone may or may not have voted twice.

Anyway, the main point is I like Yaro's way. I trust him to count, providing I get a cc of the mail as well. With a human counting, there can be no uncertaintity.

[EmuGod]

Why not use pms instead?

[POTUS]

Do you know if someone has a new email account, and just forgot to change the Contact Info? With pms, we can know who sent the ballot.

[POTUS]

What if we had people pm or e-mail their vote to three different people. We would only accept e-mails from accounts on the contact list, and each of those people would count up the number of ballots. Then, the three people would reconcile the vote counts.

Or, it could be four people, an election referee, and the three party leaders.