Why the proposed changes in voting should be declined

[fluffmonster]

http://www.alandfaraway.org/phpbbforum/ ... hp?t=39994

Therein lie several proposed changes to the charter, including changes in terms of various admin position and changes in the timeline of an election itself.

The crucial piece I would like to bring attention to is the latter. A first-round vote is to be reduced to 3 days, and the second round reduced to a single day. I maintain that this is too short.

The merry-go-round nature of our elections contributes significantly to apathy about the whole process, and there is much I see in the proposed changes in an attempt to get off. The goal is worthy. Decreasing the frequency of elections will certainly help I believe.

However, another part is that the election itself is to be hurried along, and the proposal belies a lack of understanding as to the purpose of a runoff. Making elections too short does not reduce apathy, but increases it. Make the voting window too small, and people miss it, and at that point why bother to mind at all?

Lastly, the proposals affirm a disdain for run-offs. The whole point of voting at all is that the winner has the support of as much of the community as possible. All a single round of voting does is select the individual with the largest number of supporters. It makes no account of second or third-best choices, and certainly does nothing to reflect the will of *the* majority. Having a second round is crucial to ensuring that the winner is actually supported by the most people possible.

I support changes to the process to reduce the merry-go-round aspect, but we have to keep in mind the reason we want to do so is to reduce apathy, and this proposal takes with one hand while giving with the other.

[Veilan]

I'm with fluff on the voting duration. It's simply too short, especially considering this is a hobby community, where people may just not want to check the board every day, just in case there might be an election on... Add to it the relatively high frequency of resignations, and people can't even check their calender whether they're supposed to vote in something soon.

Doesn't seem a good idea.

[Mikayla]

A big +1 to what fluff wrote.

[Wynna]

I also weigh in with agreement that run-offs should not be minimized.

[MorbidKate]

For many who check in once a week due to RL they could miss an entire election and runoff in the blink of an eye. With it being so rare for Admin to go full term I just don't see how this helps any imho.

Kate

[zicada]

I for one, think all admins should be able to remain admins as long as they want, unless somebody wants them gone.
There are atleast 100 reasons why its bad to change admins often. The real thing to focus on here is WHY admins dont "last", not taking it for granted that they wont.
ALFA as a whole would greatly benefit from the same admin beeing around for as long as possible anyway, trust me.
Currently, 2/6 of a "term" is spent figuring out what the last guy/gal did, especially in IA and TA.

[Nalo Jade]

This is how democracy dies ... with thunderous applause.

Why Admin get burnt out is a good question. Making recall the only option for removal is not good. If the Admin in question is not burnt out and doing a good job, why can't they keep the position "forever" even with regular elections?

[Lusipher]

hence why we had a Quake. Those in power at the time were doing a good job, but a select few didnt agree especially after one of them wasnt following the rules and had his server yanked from Live status. Either you want folks with absolute terms or you want a democracy that ALFA has tried to become the past number of years.

I dont have an issue with adding more time for voting. Sometimes I think the voting is too long, but I can understand adding a day or so to the run off since some might miss it. I dont think we will shoot ourselves in the foot by allowing an extra day or so for run off votes.

I dont have an issue with folks staying in power in Admin either. As long as recall is in place then you have an out or way to deal with a bad Admin. Its been used before and it will be used again in the future im sure. Our Admin just need to hold themselves to the highest level of maturity *looks weerily at Zic*

If a person wants to challenge an Admin I think they should be allowed to start a vote, though

[Magile]

Lastly, the proposals affirm a disdain for run-offs. The whole point of voting at all is that the winner has the support of as much of the community as possible. All a single round of voting does is select the individual with the largest number of supporters. It makes no account of second or third-best choices, and certainly does nothing to reflect the will of *the* majority. Having a second round is crucial to ensuring that the winner is actually supported by the most people possible.

Run-offs are inherently flawed if less than four candidates are involved in the initial voting. I will try to find the studied information, but I believe it focused on the bias and how easily you could figure out who would win the run-off based on the eliminated person's platform/voters and so on. Perhaps change it so run-offs only occur if four or more people are in the initial running for a position?

Anyway, I'm not looking for shorter voting terms or anything, but I do dislike the run-off system in its current form.

[White Warlock]

As this tangent was brought up, holding an administrative position indefinitely is simply a bad idea. In may very well create within the admin a sense of entitlement. This, in and of itself could produce problems. And, as has been presented by past recalls, attempting to recall someone becomes a major drama scene, with many hurt feelings and bitter, lingering disputes.

There is nothing stopping anyone from being voted back in for another term. If they are serving the community well, they will be voted back in. If they are not, they won't be. Voting ensures a 'courteous', and potentially non-drama, means of recalling, or encouraging someone, to step down. And while it has been discussed before, i really don't see anything too wrong with extending a term from 6 months to a year.

As to the voting time frame. I agree it should be a relatively large window. I also think an 'uncomplicated' and relatively small news brief email should be sent to all members, indicating events, polls, and votes, with accompanying links.

The bigger problem is not the length of voting booth availability, it's in the public display of debates and arguments on candidates. This has been discussed before, and it looks like it is already being considered, so i will end this.

Ciao

[Mulu]

Run-offs are inherently flawed if less than four candidates are involved in the initial voting. I will try to find the studied information, but I believe it focused on the bias and how easily you could figure out who would win the run-off based on the eliminated person's platform/voters and so on.

It's the rule of threes. People tend to go for the perceived "reasonable middle" option. It's why McCain is trying so hard to cast himself as being in the reasonable middle between Bush and Obama. If he pulls it off, he'll likely win.

[Veilan]

holding an administrative position indefinitely is simply a bad idea

+1

[paazin]

This is a moot discussion as the proposal had already been withdrawn by the time the thread was started

Likely it will be resubmitted, but only the minor rules tweaks, keeping the current election system intact.