Ziu Reform Possibilities

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Simply by having more people on the list than the absolute bare minimum. These people don't even have to be a member of your party, mind you.

Right, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

You're presupposing that voters want to be represented by unelected, unaccountable off-list appointees, or alternatively that they want to concentrate all power into a single person. The fact that Talossa currenty even allows off-list MCs or more than one seat per MC is a grave violation of basic democratic principles, and it exists solely to make the lives of Talossan party leaders easier. I find it concerning that these generosities are not only taken for granted but considered not generous enough.

I'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)  But this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Right, but circumstance we're discussing is a new party whose share of the vote expands faster than their personal recruitment.  It's already tight, and we're proposing making it much worse.

Your party is not exactly "new", is my point. You should've foreseen that the same people that were highly popular before under a different label would still be popular now, and accounted for it. If the demand exceeds the supply, it is your responsibility as a party leader to keep up with the demand.

I'm not really presupposing that... it's been a fact in the past -- Dien is the only one who has ever run for office with no party list, I think, and he got only a few votes (presumably from people who did indeed want that!)

Not even remotely the same as what you've been suggesting here. Plus, I don't think "we've always done it like this" is a good enough argument to continue flaunting the basic principles of democratic conduct. Talossa, in the past, has not been a good democracy. It should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

But this flexibility doesn't exist for convenience, it exists because power should be distributed according to the will of the people, as much as we can manage.  This is the most basic of basic democratic principles.

The power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I've heavily edited my previous post to fix several syntax and phrasing errors, for the record.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

I certainly work on recruitment, but aside from that, the only thing I could think would be to aim lower and not contest Senats seats, lol.  Again, aiming lower is not a solution and not democratic.

It should be in the people's interest to improve Talossan democracy, not worsen it.

Absolutely.

The power to concentrate power in a few unelected appointees loyal only to the party leadership is absolutely only a convenience, and enabling this conduct any further is the exact opposite of democracy. It may be *your* will, but it's not the people's will.

The people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

But again, I don't want parties to be able to invest their power in just one or two people.  That's also not a good outcome.  I'm asking for us to work to find a solution that addresses both concerns.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

The people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

But setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

Elections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

[Françal I. Lux]

As long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

There are several open list systems, but some only allow you to choose candidates from your preferred party list. I suppose you could have a system where you have a "party vote" and a "candidate vote", and your candidate vote could go to someone outside your preferred party; but that might have weird effects, like, URL voters making a concerted effort to push a Prog candidate whom they liked to the top of the Prog list, over the wishes of Prog voters. Would that be okay?

Sorry, I was not clear on my statement. I would be in favor of an open list system as a compromise given that voters' choice dictate the order of seat apportionment on the list.

[Françal I. Lux]

As long as the voters can choose who they want as their representatives regardless of party affiliation, I would be ok with an open list voting system as a compromise.

I still think the easiest way of implementing this, without any weird edge cases from trying to marry candidate votes and party votes, would be to implement a system in which party affiliation is listed on the ballot but irrelevant to the apportionment method.

I would be in support of this method.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

I have implemented an Approval Voting tabulator compatible with the Pseudo-Real 20 seat Cosă. Feel free to play around with it, and let me know what you think.

Link

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

The people's will is best and most directly expressed by their vote, and we should be careful about wise elders deciding when the people's will shouldn't count.

This is exactly why I oppose expanding off-list appointees or softening party list requirements any further, since it is essentially elder party leaders deciding that the directly expressed preference for a certain slate of candidates should not count as long as it's convenient for them.

Sure. And I'm saying that both things are true.  We need to find solutions that both allow for the most accurate representation of the will of the voters and which don't give party leaders absolute discretion to hand out seats.

But setting all that aside, what do you think of the voting system I proposed a few posts ago?

Elections to the Cosă shall be conducted following the principles of personalised proportional voting.

• Voters shall be given the choice to either vote for a single party list at-large, or to distribute exactly 20 individual votes among all candidates listed on all party lists. A single candidate may be awarded up to three individual votes.
• Seats shall be apportioned among party lists according to their at-large party list votes as well as the total individual votes for their candidates using the largest remainder method. Individual candidate votes shall count as one twentieth of an at-large party list vote for the purposes of party seat apportionment. In case of a tie, the party with the higher total vote count is prefered.
• Party seats shall be apportioned among their list candidates according to their individual votes using the largest remainder method. In case of a tie, the candidate listed higher on the list is prefered.

Wow, this is a little bit confusing.  Okay, so the way this works is that voters will be presented with two choices about how to have their vote counted... they can either just vote for a party with a block of 20 votes, or they can give out 20 votes to any individuals they want on any lists (up to 3 per person).

So, at a glance, I'll note that we probably want to have a maximum assignment that's a divisor of 20, since a lot of people will want to just evenly split up their vote.  I'd suggest just increasing it to 4.

Also, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.  That means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

This obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.  In our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.  I don't think that's the worse thing in the world, but it's not great.

This seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

Honestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Wow, this is a little bit confusing.

Let me first say that this proposal (not my favourite but one which still acknowledges parties) is based very heavily on the system of panachage used in German local elections. Which is to say, it works and has been shown to work for decades. It's not the simplest system in the world, but then again, simplicity is often the antithesis of fairness when it comes to voting (see FPTP).

Also, I suspect we're going to have a problem with the practical implementation of this.  We should expect a majority of people to do what they've always done: cast party votes.

Sure, most would. That's why this is an explicit option.

That means that we're giving wildly disproportionate power to people who cast individual votes.  They're steering all of those party votes' distribution.  (Also, what happens if a party gets no individual votes?)

I don't know what you mean by "wildly disproportionate" here. People who vote for a single list accept the list and the ordering of its candidates without change. People who vote for individuals care about ordering or cross-partisan support. If a party gets no individual votes, the party seats are distributed evenly among all candidates on the list, with preference given to candidates on the top of the list.

This obviously disadvantages small parties, of course.

How?

In our past, many times new or small parties have only had one or two candidates -- practically speaking, this system would force voters to spread out their vote if they choose candidates.

If people prefer a small party to the exclusion of all others, then they can just vote for that small party directly, no splitting required. If they choose to split their votes, they can. I don't see where or how voters would be forced to do anything.

This seems like there'd be no seat maximum?  And it says nothing about replacement seats?

The way seat maximums and replacement seats are handled would be unaffected, which is why I didn't mention them.

Honestly, I'm not sure this proposal works for us just because we're so small.

What does size have to do with giving voters more of a say?

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

Oh, I see.  I misunderstood one aspect, here.  Okay, thank you.  This is actually really intriguing.

I guess a lot of my concerns come from:

(a) We need to figure out something that addresses replacement seats, too.
(b) This is really complicated and seems prone to gamesmanship, and I'm a little concerned that we're already having a problem with RCV even years after it was introduced.

I mean, I think my preference would be to stick with something like the current system (ie what @Miestră Schivă, UrN-GC  proposed)... just take party leaders out of the equation for the most part.  Everyone submits a party list of minimum length, seats are distributed to people on the party list, and if someone leaves, then their seats are redistributed according to the same rule.  It's very simple, it's something people are used to doing, and it makes sure that everyone knows where their vote would be going specifically.  This wouldn't allow for in-term replacements, but that's what new citizen seats are for (we would need to go back to 200 if we're going to still have new citizen seats).

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

This is really complicated and seems prone to gamesmanship

I must say, it is really frustrating that any voting system more involved than "choose one and only one" is immediately dismissed as too complicated for the 71% college-educated Talossan public, when rural Germans have no issues with it whatsoever. Likewise, if the system was prone to gamesmanship, I suppose it would've already been gamed, and to my knowledge it hasn't.

I reject the insinuation that Talossans are simply not smart enough to be given a say on who actually represents them, and instead have to make due with choosing which label, colour and logo they like best.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

No one's saying that people aren't smart, but you're not recognizing the facts on the ground.  Voters do have trouble with big changes to systems, and even years after we introduced RCV and despite explicit appeals from party leaders, a lot of people don't use it even when it would better represent their interests.

This is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life.  We are a voluntary country, and nothing like inflation or postal service changes or road maintenance will force Talossa into the regular awareness of our electorate.  This isn't a criticism... it's praise, since this is a group of people who surpass most of the rest of the world in their civic duty.  Talossans have had to affirmatively choose to become Talossan in a way that few people do, and they must regularly maintain that choice through fulfilling their civic duties.  They have already reached a higher standard than most people in the world will ever meet.

I'm not saying your proposal is impossible, but I think you need to please be aware that it is complicated in an objective way, and if you want to persuade people to support it, we need to grapple with that.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

No one's saying that people aren't smart,

It may not seem like it to you, but whenever you dismiss a voting system that lets voters have more say than just selecting a logo as "complicated", it comes across as incredibly condescending, and as if you don't trust people to even have that much of a say to begin with.

This is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life. [...]

I don't know what your perception of the average German or the average Australian for that matter is, but we're not all party activists or legislators or even politically active either, and it still works somehow. Why might that be? Elections are voluntary in Germany, so the fact that being Talossan and participating in Talossan elections is also voluntary is not a satisfying answer, either.

Perhaps the problems run deeper than just Talossa being a voluntary association, when we have voters whose only contribution to the country is showing up every 9 months to submit a copy-pasted partially invalid public vote in the voting thread. Perhaps it would benefit the country if we made more of an effort to educate voters on the powers they have. But, I don't know.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

No one's saying that people aren't smart,

It may not seem like it to you, but whenever you dismiss a voting system that lets voters have more say than just selecting a logo as "complicated", it comes across as incredibly condescending, and as if you don't trust people to even have that much of a say to begin with.

Most people make their choices on the ballot based on the statements of the parties, the people listed on the ballot, and any mailers they receive.  You can sneer at that as "choosing a logo," but that's not what I said and it's not the reality.

This is because the majority of Talossans aren't party activists or legislators or even very present on Wittenberg, and there's no forcible penetration of Talossa into their daily life. [...]

I don't know what your perception of the average German or the average Australian for that matter is, but we're not all party activists or legislators or even politically active either, and it still works somehow. Why might that be?

Germans are living in Germany, and there are newspapers, magazine, television, advertisements, and physical mail that call their attention to their politics.  Their daily lives do, as well.  If the roads are rough and poorly maintained, people begin to notice and complain, and if they receive poor constituent services, then their vote might change.  If inflation goes up, they often are inclined to punish the incumbent administration for the rise in the cost of living.  Daily life makes it more likely their political awareness is heightened.

I do not think you should mock people who are relatively uninvolved and just like to belong and vote.  It would be good to have people more interested and active, but the sneers and mockery is unnecessary.  It's also not going to help us actually figure out solutions.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

Most people make their choices on the ballot based on the statements of the parties, the people listed on the ballot, and any mailers they receive.  You can sneer at that as "choosing a logo," but that's not what I said and it's not the reality.

But the choice they make is effectively only for a logo, since party statements and mailers are fluff, party lists are not-binding, and the current system only allows you to pick one party with no further input allowed. That is the reality, is it not?

Germans are living in Germany, and there are newspapers, magazine, television, advertisements, and physical mail that call their attention to their politics.  Their daily lives do, as well.  If the roads are rough and poorly maintained, people begin to notice and complain, and if they receive poor constituent services, then their vote might change.  If inflation goes up, they often are inclined to punish the incumbent administration for the rise in the cost of living.  Daily life makes it more likely their political awareness is heightened.

It's an accurate description of how people become politically involved, but none of this has anything to do with how people (both the politically involved and the uninvolved) manage to navigate the "complicated" voting system without any issues. That part remains unexplained.

I do not think you should mock people who are relatively uninvolved and just like to belong and vote.

It's not mocking. The amount of copy-pasted invalid votes cast last election is genuinely concerning. A sudden spike in invalid votes should concern you, as well.

[Baron Alexandreu Davinescu]

But the choice they make is effectively only for a logo, since party statements and mailers are fluff, party lists are not-binding, and the current system only allows you to pick one party with no further input allowed. That is the reality, is it not?

I disagree.  In my experience, the campaign matters a lot.  An effective campaign message and outreach effort is the difference between 10% of the vote and 40%.

Germans are living in Germany, and there are newspapers, magazine, television, advertisements, and physical mail that call their attention to their politics.  Their daily lives do, as well.  If the roads are rough and poorly maintained, people begin to notice and complain, and if they receive poor constituent services, then their vote might change.  If inflation goes up, they often are inclined to punish the incumbent administration for the rise in the cost of living.  Daily life makes it more likely their political awareness is heightened.

It's an accurate description of how people become politically involved, but none of this has anything to do with how people (both the politically involved and the uninvolved) manage to navigate the "complicated" voting system without any issues. That part remains unexplained.

They're made aware of the voting system and how it works and think of it from time to time thanks to the consciousness raised in them by their daily lives, I would imagine.  Everyone in Germany is voting that way, after all.  The news has explainers about it, and their friends are all voting with that same method, and so on.  Talossans don't have that, usually.

But it's hard for me to speak to these specific systems.  I'm not even saying Talossans can't do it... I'm just urging caution and a lot of care!

I do not think you should mock people who are relatively uninvolved and just like to belong and vote.

It's not mocking. The amount of copy-pasted invalid votes cast last election is genuinely concerning. A sudden spike in invalid votes should concern you, as well.

You might think you're not mocking, but it really reads that way... especially when I'm just asking us to think about the element of complication as one factor to consider.

[Marcel Eðo Pairescu Tafial, UrGP]

They're made aware of the voting system and how it works and think of it from time to time thanks to the consciousness raised in them by their daily lives, I would imagine.  Everyone in Germany is voting that way, after all.  The news has explainers about it, and their friends are all voting with that same method, and so on.

Interestingly enough, this is not actually the case. Details on the system (including the number of votes and how and when splitting is allowed) depends on the state and county, and federal elections use a different system altogether. What they do have though are very detailed explanations of how to cast a valid ballot on the ballot itself, including the number of total votes, how vote splitting and cumulation works, how to remove candidates from lists, etc.

Perhaps a more in-depth explanation on how to cast ranked ballots would help with RCV, and likewise with other proposed systems.