|
| revised Draft Elections and Referendums Act | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 02:00 | | Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W. | March 16, 2005 - 11:43 |
|
Parent message | | revised Draft Elections and Referendums Act | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 02:00 |
| I'll have a lot of suggestions...(#19), posted by Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W., [IP Hidden], March 16, 2005 - 11:43. Viewed 980 times. |
|
Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W.
Group: admins
(1791 posts total)
(last post: November 24, 2007 - 15:07)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | I read the document, and will make a lot of suggestions once I have the time to either type them, or think them thru.
Many of these suggestions are related to more easily automate the system. For example, it says at some point :
"(c) a box shall appear to the left of each name and the "abstain" option in which electors will fill out their preferences."
I would rewrite it to :
"(c) a box shall appear either to the left or at the bottom of each name and the "abstain" option in which electors will fill out their preferences."
Enabling me to have in the ballot the ability to make a nice table format, with the options neatly aligned at the bottom.
But some of them are not ENTIRELY related to the Database. For example :
"3. Each voter shall then place a number in the box next to the name of each candidate they wish to vote for in order of preference, with "1" being the first preference, "2" being the second preference and so on. If the elector does not wish to vote for any candidate, they shall place a number "1" in the box next to the "abstain" option, and their vote shall not be counted towards any candidate, and shall not be used in determining the quota. Any preferences expressed after the "abstain" option shall be of no effect. "
This would be rewritten enterily if it was up to me, because I think ( thought I might be alone in my thoughts ) that the current ballot for such elections, which allows to order the candidates names using 2 lists is even clearer.
I would also use a different method for abstaintion : not filling any ranks, or an abstain option completly aside.
But this technique of course, works only on a computer, so perharps the above paragraph would apply for paper ballots, with a different one for online voting.
Finally, I would require specifically ALL ranks to be filled for the ballot to be valid. Otherwise, the vote might be lost !
Give me the time to think it thru, I will get back to you.
This signature is no longer in service. Please hang up and try this page again. This is a recording. |
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 14:16 |
|
Parent message | | Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W. | March 16, 2005 - 11:43 |
| RE: I'll have a lot of suggestions...(#21), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], March 16, 2005 - 14:16. Viewed 967 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ |
> Many of these suggestions are related to more easily automate the system.
Right. If you approve of the principles of the legislation then that's all good. I look forward to hearing your suggestions to make it more easily automated - please post them here as and when you think of it.
> Finally, I would require specifically ALL ranks to be filled for the ballot to be valid. Otherwise, the vote might be lost !
I would oppose that. That's the system they have in Australia and I think it's too draconian - I prefer the Irish "optional preference" system. If people *want* their votes to be lost - if they *want* to put in a [1] preference and not anyone elses - then that should be up to then. I don't want anyone's votes invalidated on a technicality.
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
| | Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W. | March 16, 2005 - 15:40 |
|
Parent message | | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 14:16 |
| RE: I'll have a lot of suggestions...(#22), posted by Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W., [IP Hidden], March 16, 2005 - 15:40. Viewed 934 times. |
|
Mr. Furxheir, R.M.W.
Group: admins
(1791 posts total)
(last post: November 24, 2007 - 15:07)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ |
> > Finally, I would require specifically ALL ranks to be filled for the ballot to be valid. Otherwise, the vote might be lost !
>
> I would oppose that. That's the system they have in Australia and I think it's too draconian - I prefer the Irish "optional preference" system. If people *want* their votes to be lost - if they *want* to put in a [1] preference and not anyone elses - then that should be up to then. I don't want anyone's votes invalidated on a technicality.
Well, right now, you cannot submit the form if you haven't filled all of the positions. The reason is to prevent someone from voting by mistake without having filled all their votes.
I can of course change the behaviour, but I thought it was nice.
The other reason is simple : we need to enumerate all of the ballots for there be some accountability.
If we allow people to fill "partial" ballots is makes it even easier to identify who voted for what "You can confirm My vote, I will vote for you in first, Grubi in second and stop there"
But the biggest argument I think is unpredicability : If you decide : "Hey, I am sure Grubi will be in the top 2, so I don't need to pick a second choice", well, what if Grubi IS eliminated ? You will have lost your vote and we won't be garanteed a majority.
In fact, if EVERYONE only picked 1st rank, then we might end up with a candidate with only 30% of the vote, but everyone else is eliminated.
This signature is no longer in service. Please hang up and try this page again. This is a recording. |
|
| | President Anglatzarâ | March 16, 2005 - 05:21 |
|
Parent message | | revised Draft Elections and Referendums Act | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 02:00 |
| RE: revised Draft Elections and Referendums Act(#18), posted by President Anglatzarâ, [IP Hidden], March 16, 2005 - 05:21. Viewed 1063 times. |
|
President Anglatzarâ
Group: admins
(3194 posts total)
(last post: March 14, 2008 - 07:21)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | Do you want spelling mistakes pointed out at this stage?
--
 |
|
| | la garçâ malpadert | March 16, 2005 - 14:15 |
|
Parent message | | President Anglatzarâ | March 16, 2005 - 05:21 |
| RE: revised Draft Elections and Referendums Act(#20), posted by la garçâ malpadert, [IP Hidden], March 16, 2005 - 14:15. Viewed 993 times. |
|
la garçâ malpadert
Group: admins
(4379 posts total)
(last post: March 13, 2008 - 16:29)
Citizen #22:
Miestrâ Schivâ | > Do you want spelling mistakes pointed out at this stage?
I never want spelling mistakes pointed out. :) Give me a week to find them myself and then let rip.
Miestrâ Schivâ
"The Republic's Most Articulate Spokeswhatever" - R. B. Madison
A slave begins by demanding justice, and ends by wanting to wear a crown. |
|
|
|
