Non-anonymous elections

[Goonie]

I believe it is time that our nation move from anonymous elections, to non-anonymous elections where the voter must state at least one reason why he or she voted for the person they did. This would benefit us in many ways. For example...

This proposal would force voters to actually think about who they vote for. They can't just click amlessly on a box. They must actually think about each candidate and then, they must have a least one reason to vote for the person they did. This will force voters to actually think before they vote.

 

[Bootstoots]

Regarding the FA election, perhaps people just wanted a change. I don't think Zarn has done a bad job and I do think you should tone down the argument against Zarn a bit.

Regarding the proposal as a whole, I don't think it would necessarily be a good thing. Though I usually announce who I vote for, there are times when I would like to keep my vote anonymous. Also, who's to say that a habitual lurker wouldn't know who would make a better candidate simply because they don't post often, or that they won't vote in non-anonymous elections. Plus, getting unseated by someone who has the vote of people who don't come here often is part of the game. Elections are quirky, plain and simple, and I think we have to live with this.

 

[FortyJ]

Goonie, I don't think you've thought this through fully.

Removing anonymity from the voting process is not inherently undemocratic (provided individuals are still free to vote their consciences). However, what you're espousing here is the notion of restricting certain people's right to vote - essentially creating an elite class of citizens (ie. people who post at an average of 5 posts in the MSDG forum per week or more) and this is terribly undemocratic.

Furthermore, you seem to be proposing a sort of validation committee to ensure that a person's vote is legitimate enough to count (ie. simply stating "I voted for Goonie" would be dismissed). Such a committe would hold incredible power and would be comparable to the Communist Party in Cuba or the former Soviet Union (although this committe couldn't restrict the number of candidates, they would have final say on which votes counted and which ones didn't).

I, personally, would not be opposed to roll-call voting, although it would require some additional, and in my opinion unnecessary, work to calculate the winners of each election. However, I am avidly opposed to your suggestions that we screen out "legitimate" votes.

 

[Goonie]

Boots - There is a difference between a habitual lurker and a non acitve member. Did I say habitual lurker? No, I said non active member.

40J - I am sure that there would be some means of deciding who is active and who is not active. This has nothing to do with creating elite citizens. It is all about giving the vote to those who participate/ pay attention. For example, Zukatah and croxis don't post alot, but we all know that they are active in some way. I am sure we could create a new Ministry to look after which citizens are active or not.

You have to admit that is silly to have non active citizens vote. They are not up to date.

 

[FortyJ]

On the contrary. I think it's presumptive to assume that they are not up to date. Besides, you would be hard pressed to convince me that being up to date is a legitimate requirement for choosing an individual over another in an election.

 

[Zarn]

edited: disscussed via pm. No more tensions between me and another member.

 

[Octavian X]

I would also be opposed to an non-anonymous vote - it would be terribly undemocratic to disallow people from voting, and to force one to make his opinions known.

 

[Goonie]

Zarn I want you! Check your PM box. I will be making a huge change in this proposal. Stay tuned.