How should we elect the Judiciary?

[DaveShack]

This poll is to determine support for various options to change the election laws regarding elections of the members of the judiciary. The result of this poll does not change the law, it just tells us which of the many options would be most likely to be adopted as the new law.

The options require varying amounts of effort to implement. A plethora of information about how hard each would be is contained in the related discussion thread. This is a multi-choice poll, please vote for each of the methods that you would support.

Now, on to the options.

Option A is the status quo, with a single-choice poll for the entire judiciary. The top vote getter is the CJ, and the next two are AJ's.

Option B is the old way of electing the judiciary, with separate polls for each of the 3 positions. According to other parts of the law, an individual would only be able to run for one position (CJ, AJ1, AJ2) and the losers of each position would end up not being on the bench.

Option C is the old way (separate elections for each position) along with the necessary changes to allow someone to run for both CJ and AJ.

Option D is a single election for CJ and a single election for both AJ positions, with the 1st and 2nd place AJ candidates taking office.

Option E is a single election for the entire judiciary, with a multi-select poll (vote for as many candidates as you wish). The person with the most votes is CJ, the next two are AJs.

Option F means you want to see some other method of electing the judiciary. Please post the method you would like to see.

Option G is abstain.

This poll will remain open for 48 hours, as it is informational in nature only.

The discussion thread.

 

[Cyc]

I voted for A. It seemed to work fine last time.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Originally posted by Cyc
I voted for A. It seemed to work fine last time.

Option A is the least palatable of all the options because each citizen only gets one vote to elect three judiciary members. Since the people are not allowed to select their second and third choices, those numbers do not reflect in the final result and the peoples' will is poorly represented.

I voted for Option E because while a citizen is allowed to vote for as many candidiates as he wishes, the more votes he casts the less his vote is worth. So voters may either spread the wealth among worthy candidates or give strength to a particular candidate by choosing that person only. Or do their civic duty by voting for only three candidates.

Vote Option E!

 

[jorge_roberto]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


I voted for Option E because while a citizen is allowed to vote for as many candidiates as he wishes, the more votes he casts the less his vote is worth. So voters may either spread the wealth among worthy candidates or give strength to a particular candidate by choosing that person only. Or do their civic duty by voting for only three candidates.

Vote Option E!

Can we limit the number of marked options in a multiple option poll?

 

[eyrei]

Originally posted by jorge_roberto



Can we limit the number of marked options in a multiple option poll?

No, I don't believe we can.

I think we should change the laws so that a person who runs for one judicial position runs for all of them, and hold 3 separate elections.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by jorge_roberto



Can we limit the number of marked options in a multiple option poll?

Since voting for more people reduces the effectiveness of one's vote, there is a strong incentive to vote for a small number of candidates. There is an excellent post in the discussion thread on this issue.

 

[FortyJ]

Having multiple polls creates problems depending on the structure of the poll. If you divide up the positions and have individuals run for only one of the positions, then we run the risk of having two desirable candidates running for the same position resulting in one of them not serving on the bench. On the other hand, if you allow all candidates to run in all three polls, then we run the risk of having a candidate elected in two or more polls and then trying to decide which of the runners-up to elect as well.

The single poll with only 1 vote is potentially unfair to the candidates because the voters are only allowed to vote for their respective top choices. This could result in 1 or more desirable candidates (say 2nd most preferred by a majority, but not most preferred by enough to finish in the top 3 spots) failing to serve.

The multi-select poll not only allows everyone to vote for all of their preferred candidates, it also eliminates the potential problems created by dividing up the positions into separate polls. To those of us who are concerned about people voting for more than the number of candidates to be elected, consider this:

1. A voter voting for only 1 candidate helps that candidate only. That candidate will move 1 vote closer to the top, while the other candidates remain in the same position.
2. A voter voting for all candidates helps none. Since all candidates receive a vote, nobody has increased his or her lead over the rest of the pack, nor has anyone cut into a lead. Therefore, nobody is helped.

A little deductive reasoning will show that as long as each voter votes for no more than the number of positions available, he or she will be helping those candidates' chances. However, once the voter votes for more than the number of positions available, the strength of his or her vote begins to weaken.

Option E resolves the judiciary elections quickly, with little confusion, and no need for Moderator oversight. I strongly recommend this option.

 

[Bootstoots]

I would like to point out that Option E would violate our CoL A.7.c, which states:

c. No citizen will vote more than once in the same poll.

. We cannot have multi-choice official polls without an amendment to the CoL in addition. That being said, I voted for options B and D, as they seem like the most palatable methods. This way, each person can vote for who they want to win each position, without casting their votes multiple times in the same poll.

 

[Paalikles]

Well - after reading up on the available alternatives, and taking into consideration what people argued: I voted for B,C and E as they looked to be what best allowed the will of the people to come forward


Edit:
After readin the objection by Bootstoots, I have to agree with the comment of Ravensfire below, and add that I cannot see any clear violation, as one only votes 1nce, but votes for 3 people with the same vote.

Then I realize that what I am saying are just words - but the solution lies in revorking the part Bootstoots is refering to


pardon my french though

 

[ravensfire]

Interesting viewpoint Boots.

Of course, I would counter that by pointing out that multiple choice polls allow the person to vote only once in the poll, but that they can select multiple items within that poll.

The question would become where does the action "vote" happen - when you click on the Vote button after selection the option(s) of your choice, or when you select an option.

Quite obviously, I believe in the first case.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to point out that Option E would violate our CoL A.7.c, which states:
. We cannot have multi-choice official polls without an amendment to the CoL in addition. That being said, I voted for options B and D, as they seem like the most palatable methods. This way, each person can vote for who they want to win each position, without casting their votes multiple times in the same poll.

Well, this is not quite correct. The set of options you choose in a multi-choice poll is actually a "vote" in this context. CoL A.7.c is meant to eliminate people using multiple logins to vote in the same poll more than once.

 

[Rik Meleet]

I'd go for 2 elections. Election 1: CJ.
When that has finished, the non-elected contestants are automatically inserted in a new single choice election for AJ, of which the top 2 are elected AJ's.

Option F, I assume.

 

[FortyJ]

Keep in mind that holding multiple elections in sequence (ie. CJ first, then followed by AJs) would require a lengthy election period for the Judiciary, and would require some additional modifications to the rules pertaining to elections and the dates in which they are conducted.

Edit: One more thing.... I would disagree with boots' assertion that multi-select polls are illegal. An individual may vote for multiple candidates and still be considered as only voting once in that election. All the same, a little rewording of that clause couldn't hurt.

 

[jorge_roberto]

Originally posted by DaveShack


Since voting for more people reduces the effectiveness of one's vote, there is a strong incentive to vote for a small number of candidates. There is an excellent post in the discussion thread on this issue.

Sure, Dave.

I hadn't thought this. But is true. Now, I support a multiple-choice poll.

 

[dreiche2]

Originally posted by Bootstoots
I would like to point out that Option E would violate our CoL A.7.c, which states:

...

. We cannot have multi-choice official polls without an amendment to the CoL in addition.

Well, I agree, I mentioned this already in the discussion thread.

But I think it's also clear that it's just the wording of the law that creates the problem, as in its intention it probably wasn't ment to affect multiple-choice polls.

Thus a clarification of that part surely won't hurt.

Having said all this - Option E is my choice

 

[Bill_in_PDX]

I voted for C. It is still a mystery to me as to why we are short changing the election process for an important part of our government.