Single unified vote

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

This is a little private poll ,to see what people would think of this idea.

In the past ,in the DG ,we always have ellected people for specific positions.For ex. a poll for president ,a poll for the interior minister ,etc ,with specific runners for each position.

I have an idea for change ,though granted it needs to be worked out to be secure.But the thought is to have a single unified voting system ,when ellections come we have 1 vote and one vote only ,we list everyone in a poll who runs for a position ,and people vote their candidate of choice.The person with the highest number of vote's gets the first chance for the highest position ,and possibly so forth untill all positions are filled.

In the past the seperate polls often led to discrepant results ,sometimes because for one position 3 strong members ran ,while an other position only had 2 weaker candidate's for ex. ,deffinatly certain positions were just less interresting and sometimes we had to accept people by merrit of being the only candidate.

Atleast ,input is wanted ,it could have advantage's but probably it has it's set of disadvantages to.

 

[Gloriana]

Mmmm it sounds workable, but is it good?

On the one hand, yes you do get the strongest, most supported members in the government.

On the other hand, suppose someone ends up 4th in the elections, the position(s) he really wanted to do are already taken and what is left is something that person doesn't really want to do, whereas there is someone who didn't make it through to get a post but really DOES want to do one of the leftover positions, should we then force the voted person to pick a post, or do we let him pass the post over to someone who wasn't voted in?

For example, the available posts are PM, Secretary of state, Home Secretary, Chief Staff, Minister of Science, Foreign affairs Minister. Suppose you come up 4th in the elections, and you really eanted to do either PM, Secretary of State or Foreign affairs. The other ones don't interest you. The people before you chose to be PM, Secretary of State and Foreign affairs. Should you then be forced to pick either Science or Chief Staff even if you don't want to, or should you be allowed to pass your post on to the 6th (after the 5th has picked)?

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Mmmm it sounds workable, but is it good?

On the one hand, yes you do get the strongest, most supported members in the government.

On the other hand, suppose someone ends up 4th in the elections, the position(s) he really wanted to do are already taken and what is left is something that person doesn't really want to do, whereas there is someone who didn't make it through to get a post but really DOES want to do one of the leftover positions, should we then force the voted person to pick a post, or do we let him pass the post over to someone who wasn't voted in?

For example, the available posts are PM, Secretary of state, Home Secretary, Chief Staff, Minister of Science, Foreign affairs Minister. Suppose you come up 4th in the elections, and you really eanted to do either PM, Secretary of State or Foreign affairs. The other ones don't interest you. The people before you chose to be PM, Secretary of State and Foreign affairs. Should you then be forced to pick either Science or Chief Staff even if you don't want to, or should you be allowed to pass your post on to the 6th (after the 5th has picked)?

You are able to pass it upon the next.In addition ,say youre 3rd ,but you want the position 5th in hierarchy ,then you can take that position.Then either the 4th in the ellection gets the choice to be the 3rd in Hierarchy or the 3rd gets the choice to pick someone for that post ,but that's to be decided on later i guess.

More pertinent question i want you to consider: What when we have a tie?

Adittion: A unified vote could bring a new perspective to the concept of Party or citizin group ,as every person has effectivly 1 vote.Let me explain this: If a party that say represents more than 50% of the total citizins wants to dominate the ellectoral positions ,then that will be impossible ,at maximum a party will only be able to have it's weight in ellectoral vote's tho give it that percentage of positions.Say for ex that the party wants to be sure that it's candidate s PM ,then it has to have 51% of vote's needed at max to get it's candidate PM ,however this will put all it's vote's on that person and they will ONLY have the pm secured ,all the other positions ,how few votes they even have ,will go to other people.Any dominant party in ellectors my have a few ministers if they spread their votes well ,and even that will be a dangerous game (late determinal voting) and hard to coordinate.But as long as a party doesn't represent 100% of the citizins it will be impossible to dominate the political landscape ,the competition will always be able to lump it's vote's on an other candidate to get him an a secondary position atleast.

It would maybe create a fun enviroment for gameplay ,as voting would be way more strategic , a vote would have way more value then under the current voting system.In fact a unified vote would in general make formaions fo dominance harder ,Under the current system people often win a position by a mile due to few candidate's and people voting the obvious person for that position.

 

[Alphawolf]

I'm against this since this would insure that only the most popular people would be elected. Those elections where you have a couple of unknowns and no well-knowns are sometimes the only times the unknowns can get elected and you'll never know how good of officers they might be. To get rid of votes by office will just turn the race in to a popularity contest. I think that this is just a plain bad idea. That said I will keep an open mind, try to convince me.

-the Wolf

 

[Stilgar08]

I'm against this since this would insure that only the most popular people would be elected. Those elections where you have a couple of unknowns and no well-knowns are sometimes the only times the unknowns can get elected and you'll never know how good of officers they might be. To get rid of votes by office will just turn the race in to a popularity contest. I think that this is just a plain bad idea. That said I will keep an open mind, try to convince me.

-the Wolf

I definitely second that!

 

[koondrad]

I'm against this since this would insure that only the most popular people would be elected. Those elections where you have a couple of unknowns and no well-knowns are sometimes the only times the unknowns can get elected and you'll never know how good of officers they might be. To get rid of votes by office will just turn the race in to a popularity contest. I think that this is just a plain bad idea. That said I will keep an open mind, try to convince me.

-the Wolf

Quoted for truth.

 

[ravensfire]

I'm against this since this would insure that only the most popular people would be elected. Those elections where you have a couple of unknowns and no well-knowns are sometimes the only times the unknowns can get elected and you'll never know how good of officers they might be. To get rid of votes by office will just turn the race in to a popularity contest. I think that this is just a plain bad idea. That said I will keep an open mind, try to convince me.

-the Wolf

Quoted to say that already happens.

Sorry, but that's extremely accurate. More times than I care to imagine, "veterans" have run for an office, done no campaigning, and get elected. In part, it's because there is a certain level of respect for some people. I trust that some people will do certain roles in a skilled manner.

Mostly, it is a popularity contest for certain people.

-- Ravensfire

 

[Alphawolf]

Quoted to say that already happens.

Sorry, but that's extremely accurate. More times than I care to imagine, "veterans" have run for an office, done no campaigning, and get elected. In part, it's because there is a certain level of respect for some people. I trust that some people will do certain roles in a skilled manner.

Mostly, it is a popularity contest for certain people.

-- Ravensfire

Popularity is a factor in any election, but from my point of view this single unified vote removes everything else leaving us with just a popularity contest.

-the Wolf

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

Ah well ,it's an idea ,just that ,but you guys probably figured that out.As to poppularity contest ,i wouldn't exactly know why it would be more an poppularity contest than under the curent system.Care to explain plz to me WHY specificly this should turn into a poppularity contest?

 

[ravensfire]

Ah well ,it's an idea ,just that ,but you guys probably figured that out.As to poppularity contest ,i wouldn't exactly know why it would be more an poppularity contest than under the curent system.Care to explain plz to me WHY specificly this should turn into a poppularity contest?

The one factor that I find most useful in the elections I've been in is the campaigning from the candidates. Specifically, what are THEIR goals for the position they are looking for. How would they accomplish their goals. What would they need to get those goals done.

Everytime that I've been in a contested election, it's driven me to create those goals, to put effort into planning and define what I want to do. I'm embarrased to admit it, but look at DGVII and the two terms of my Presidency. Term 3 had planning, focus and drive. That's not there in Term 4. Why? Most offices were uncontested. I missed that head-to-head challenge.

Some areas would work for this unified polling - running cities and the judiciary for example. Even the cities are tough. Giving people the opportunity to create plans and goals, answer questions on them and give people a reason to vote for them allows for elections that matter, that mean more that just "Who do I like?". A unified poll means that I can't ask someone what they would do in a position, because that might be something that they'll never get the chance at.

-- Ravensfire

 

[GenMarshall]

I perfer to keep it the way it has.