Vaes graschiăs à Sieu Maxhestà per acest þonör.
Winging that one, don't skewer me please S:reu Tafial
Winging that one, don't skewer me please S:reu Tafial
Welcome to Wittenberg!
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on May 27, 2025, 10:20:21 PMQuote from: Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC on May 27, 2025, 04:22:50 PMI apologise to the Baron for a sharp reaction, but the questions that he posed - that, outwith "the first step on a slippery slope to abolition", what is the point of at-large rather than provincialised Senäts elections - have been raised many time previously, firstly by @Sir Lüc .I accept your apology, and I understand your annoyance. For my own part, I am sorry if we do have to retread the same ground a bit. My party has pledged to work to preserve the Senats, though, so we have a vested interest in knowing if this plan would just be step #1 in that process. I'm really not trying to be difficult. I'm just a little slow and trying to understand why we would possibly want to do this.
Quote from: Baron Alexandreu Davinescu on September 25, 2024, 10:59:02 AM-From the look of things, in Option 1 we'd expect Fiova to have as many seats as Maritiimi-Maxhestic and Florencia combined. And Maricopa would have twice as many seats as Vuode. That seems like a problem. Likewise, it also seems like a problem that Option 2 gives no reason for anyone to care about Vuode's interests as a province.
Quote from: Iason Taiwos on May 23, 2025, 02:14:45 PMQuote from: Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be on May 23, 2025, 02:02:57 PMI have updated the list to show that many, many moons ago, Consul Taiwos asked to be assigned to Locust.I do not remember why I chose Locust. Would it be possible for me to pick elsewhere? If so, I would like to be assigned to Garibaldi/Prospect now. (I understand there is a comic book store in that area. 😁)
Citizen | Canton | Sextieir |
@Istefan Perþonest | ||
@Flip Molinar | ||
@Iason Taiwos | Garibaldi | Prospect |
David Robert Levis | ||
@Vitxalmour (Vitxalmour Conductour) | ||
@Sir Lüc da Schir | ||
@David Donofrio | ||
@Erschéveþ da Schir | ||
@paolo.mellere (Pôl dal Cräpscaßada) | ||
@Massimiliano Sartorello | ||
Lüc da Ragutxa | ||
Mitchel Paul | ||
@Francesco Manzella | ||
@Mic'haglh Autófil, O.Be | ||
@e.iwuagwu (Emeka Iwuagwu) | ||
@Pol dal Timă Lupulescu | ||
@Dien Xhorxh |
Quote from: Sir Lüc on May 08, 2025, 03:59:16 AMWhat Sir Glüc is pointing out is exactly what I meant with my comment on the proposal thread - after poring over provincial statutes while I was building the database, I noticed our constitution exactly mandates three preferences rather than "up to" three.
Sadly my comment was very rushed and unspecific and I also completely forgot to follow up on the changes you made. I am not entirely sure how to proceed except that:
- The points based voting system clearly would hinder other candidates if one could only give three points to their top choice - many editions of TMT20 are a helpful reminder - and so if the system is to stay, casting exactly three choices would be fairest;
- Conversely, strict rules lead to potential disenfranchisment. The database could help ensuring voters do rank three choices via software checks and hint texts, ALTHOUGH in the last election it did allow leaving choices blank; voting publicly on Witt could be a more serious disenfranchisment risk should someone undervote due to missing or misunderstanding the rules for the provincial vote.
I vaguely think the first concern is most important because undervoting would unfairly distort our current voting system. On the other hand, I'm not sure if our elections are going to be so hotly contested that we're going to fight over every ballot and throw out all undervotes. In my mind, we can:
- Allow undervotes but lower the points given to each vote, so your lead choice can only get three points if you fill out your ballot (something like: 1 choice = 1 point; 2 choices, 2 and 1; three choices, 3 and 2 and 1);
- Allow undervotes but switch to a different voting system altogether;
- Not allow undervotes: proclaim the BUS and immediately amend E.2, potentially switching it to instead allowing for curing undervotes in a certain time limit.
QuotePrefatory text goes here
BE IT RESOLVED by the Best Provincial Assembly In The Land etc. that Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution of Belacosta, which currently reads asQuoteThe Provincial Council will be elected from among the citizens of the Province at each Cosă election, via a positional vote. Voters will name their first-, second-, and third-choice candidates. For each first-choice vote, the candidate shall receive three points; for each second-choice vote, two points; and for each third-place vote, one point. The three candidates with the highest point totals shall be elected to the Provincial Council, with any ties being broken by the number of first-choice votes received (and if necessary, the number of second- and then third-choice votes, with a coin flip being used past this if necessary). Provincial Consuls may choose to ceremonially represent any canton or sexteir of the Province, or to represent the Province at-large.
is hereby amended to read:QuoteThe Provincial Council will be elected from among the citizens of the Province at each Cosă election, via a positional vote. Voters may name up to three candidates, in order of their preference. For each first-choice vote, the candidate shall receive three points; for each second-choice vote, two points; and for each third-place vote, one point. The three candidates with the highest point totals shall be elected to the Provincial Council, with any ties being broken by the number of first-choice votes received (and if necessary, the number of second- and then third-choice votes, with a coin flip being used past this if necessary). Provincial Consuls may choose to ceremonially represent any canton or sexteir of the Province, or to represent the Province at-large.