Amendment: SE Poll Settings Discussion

Drogue · December 11, 2002, 17:40

I propose an amendment to the Constitution, that means any poll to change Social Engineering settings has to either be:

A choice between the status quo at the time, and one other (such as the current FM poll) and is a simple 'Yea, Nay, Abstain' Poll.
For example:
Should we change to Free Market economics?
Yea
Nay
Abstain (or Xenobanana).
Such as the Impeachment rules in the constitution

Or:

A Choice between all available options.
For example:
What economic SE settings should we have?
Free Market
Planned
Green
Abstain (or Xenobanana).
Such as the Election rules in the constitution.

Even the latter could mean that it is not quite right, since you could end up with 10 people for FM, 8 for Planned and 6 for Green, but 5 of those 6 for Green would prefer Planned to FM, so in a direct poll between FM and Planned, FM gets 11 and Planned 13. However, I feel that both together, giving the DSE discression to choose between the two, is the best system at the moment.

Currently the part concering polls in the DSE section in the Constitution says:

Quote:

May NOT:
Change the social engineering settings if there hasn’t been a poll saying it is ok.

I think we should replace this with something saying that the DSE:

Quote:

May NOT:
change the social engineering settings unless there has been a definative "Yes" vote in favour of the change.

And add to the Polls section:

Quote:

May only be started by the Director of Social Engineering. They are purely decision-making polls.
All polls to change social engineering settings either in format:

1)

Quote:

Poll:
*Only names options
*Abstain option (Or Xenobanana)
*Write-in-option
*Open 3 days minimum

First post:
*Only names candidates
*Link to discussion thread
*Expire date.

Quote:

Or

2)

Quote:

Poll:
*Yea, Nea and Abstain (Or Xenobanana) only options
*Open 3 days minimum

First post:
*Further explanation of question (if needed)
*Link to discussion thread
*Expire date.

The 1st example is take from the Elections section in the Constitution, the 2nd part from the Impeachment part, both amended for SE polls.

I would add both and leave it up toi the discression of the DSE which he wants to post. However I put the up seperatly since people may want one or other of them.

This means polls with options such as "now, sometime later, never" cannot count as official polls, and justification to change SE settings. I propose this because these sort of polls could be misinterpreted. Would someone who voted "sometime later" vote yes or no? Do they want to change?
Since people come and go, and we have new people constantly, I don't think we should allow a poll where the majority vote "sometime later" to be changed until we have a definitive "Yes" majority, since some may feel differently when conditions have been met, as the situation might have changed.

lucky22 · December 11, 2002, 19:31

I would accept such an amendment for "official" polls as long as "unofficial" polls were still permitted the flexibility necessary to judge the political climate.

Drogue · December 11, 2002, 19:54

Yes, I was refering to polls that satisfy "May NOT: Change the social engineering settings if there hasn’t been a poll saying it is ok."

Hercules · December 11, 2002, 20:30

I agree with you general intention. How about polling your second option first
What economic SE settings should we have?
Free Market
Planned
Green
Abstain (or Xenobanana).

And if no clear winner (ie 50% of all votes cast), the top two SE choices go head to head (in the manner of Planetary Council.

Pandemoniak · December 12, 2002, 05:27

Quote:

A choice between the status quo at the time, and one other (such as the current FM poll) and is a simple 'Yea, Nay, Abstain' Poll.
For example:
Should we change to Free Market economics?
Yea
Nay
Abstain (or Xenobanana).
Such as the Impeachment rules in the constitution

I absolutely concur.

Quote:

Or:
A Choice between all available options.
For example:
What economic SE settings should we have?
Free Market
Planned
Green
Abstain (or Xenobanana).
Such as the Election rules in the constitution.

Such vote would split out votes, and thus not necessarly represent the people's will. I d concut with an idea like that only if multiple votes is allowed.

Earwicker · December 12, 2002, 11:22

I also think the multiple votes approach would be the best way to go, considering the desire to change one SE element may be contingent upon where the other ones are. Like "I only want to go Green if we are also Knowledge". I'm not quite sure what these choices would look like, but there needs to be a consideration of the interdependency of the SE factors.

DeathByTheSword · December 12, 2002, 11:29

i agree with almost everything you said Drogue but if we pick the second option i agree with pande that it has to be a multiple vote

Method · December 12, 2002, 21:41

either one is fine with me. this is actually quite necessary: the current poll doesn't give clear results (because seriously now: you can't honestly say, RP aside of course, you NEVER, under any circumstances, want to run free market...can you?

)

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 00:04

I prefer Herc's idea personally. Poll the 2nd option, without multiple votes (you can't have multiple votes in an election, and I see it as an election of SE settings), however, if one option does not get 50+% of the vote (ie. a majority) then there must be another poll between the two highest scoring settings. This way, multiple votes (ie someone who wants Planned or Green) is brought in, by the fact if Green comes third, and Planned second, unless FM has a 50% majority (which a vote for either of the others will be a vote against FM) they can vote for Planned in the run-off. This is how leadership elections are done in the UK, because it's been shown to mean that the candidate (or SE setting) that is most popular (ie it wins in a choice between that and either of the other two individually) it is elected or used. Basically if your 1st choice doesn't get through, you can vote for your 2nd.

This is, both IMO, and amoung voting behaviour theorists in the UK, the most democratic way to do it. If however people want multiple votes (although they do mean that you can vote Planned and Green in the above example, and it is two votes against FM, against having a majority, and thus slightly undemocratic IMHO) then I will post that.

Which do people want?

GeneralTacticus · December 14, 2002, 00:07

i'd prefer Herc's idea.

Archaic · December 14, 2002, 00:09

One would like to note something here. I first proposed the preferential voting system as you're suggesting above way back when this game started. As I recall, it was rejected on RP reasons. Namely, that it was more efficient, and therefore violated our faction's description.

GeneralTacticus · December 14, 2002, 00:10

How is it mroe fficient? I'd have thought that as it took more time, it would be LESS efficient, but more democratic.

History Guy · December 14, 2002, 00:17

It is less efficient, and more democratic, as Tacticus says. The only reason I'd support it is because it is democratic.

However, I'm thinking that in this democratic society, finding a solution to a problem that is 50/50 (though you know that this isn't going to happen) should be done by the government, a poll in government heads. Thus, it should be an executive order to break the tie. I sincerely doubt, however, that a tie would ever actually occur.

On another note, from my years of rugged adventuring, I can dispell for you all a long held myth...

There is no xenobanana.

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 00:43

The poll is up. I have to say I don't think it will be that inefficient, simply because we chnage SE settings relatively rarely, and it means there is a chance that there might be one more poll for the decision , while cutting out extra polls needed for when there is no clear majority. Further more, it defines what is needed to change SE settings much clearer IMHO.

Quote:

Originally posted by History Guy
There is no xenobanana.

Boooo.... Hiss

Spoil all our fun

Archaic · December 14, 2002, 02:57

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus

How is it mroe fficient? I'd have thought that as it took more time, it would be LESS efficient, but more democratic.

*Shrugs* Don't ask me. That's the arguement they barked it down on. Or something like that anyway. My memory's a bit hazy ATM.

*Shouldn't be posting after he's been into the Xenobrew*

Pandemoniak · December 14, 2002, 09:59

Quote:

Originally posted by Drogue
I prefer Herc's idea personally. Poll the 2nd option, without multiple votes (you can't have multiple votes in an election, and I see it as an election of SE settings), however, if one option does not get 50+% of the vote (ie. a majority) then there must be another poll between the two highest scoring settings. This way, multiple votes (ie someone who wants Planned or Green) is brought in, by the fact if Green comes third, and Planned second, unless FM has a 50% majority (which a vote for either of the others will be a vote against FM) they can vote for Planned in the run-off. This is how leadership elections are done in the UK, because it's been shown to mean that the candidate (or SE setting) that is most popular (ie it wins in a choice between that and either of the other two individually) it is elected or used. Basically if your 1st choice doesn't get through, you can vote for your 2nd.

This is, both IMO, and amoung voting behaviour theorists in the UK, the most democratic way to do it. If however people want multiple votes (although they do mean that you can vote Planned and Green in the above example, and it is two votes against FM, against having a majority, and thus slightly undemocratic IMHO) then I will post that.

Which do people want?

I have to say that this is as well the way it works in France, though some late results proved this could be quite unefficient, and this is why I favor a multiple vote enabled.

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 11:04

It can be inefficient, but i think quite often, with only 3 options, we will need only 1 poll to get an absolute majority. As such it is fairer (you cant vote for 2 options, and hence have twice the voting power) and just as efficient. Even when not it's just one extra poll, and thats not too much IMHO. Besides, we're the UNPK, we don't care about efficiency, just pure democracy

History Guy · December 14, 2002, 12:40

Well, we need a bit of efficiency around the place, otherwise it'll look bad to our workers. My secretary, for instance, may need to send for me a very important message concerning shipments of my (well...TKG helped a bit there...) xenobrew, and instead, she will sit in the hall eating donuts and talking to her boyfriend. Now, when I'll ask her, what's up with your efficiency, she'll say, well, the government conducts polls in the same laxed manner...And there will be one more job-less secretary on Planet. However, my point is, efficiency is necessary. Democracy is a wonderful thing, yes, a glorious thing, everyone should have their word in, but if we end up (Planet forbid) in a national emergency, we simply haven't got too much time to be inefficient. Efficiency is a bad thing, even for a democracry.

However, I suppose in this case it'll have to be, as it seems it is going to pass. My only complaint is the inefficiency, and that is all.

And yes...the xenobanana is a lie! THERE IS NO XENOBANANA.

Drogue · December 14, 2002, 20:40

Is it that inefficient? It's more efficient than our current system, whereby if ther is no absolute majority, we repoll (or so it seems) and the original one doesn't stand (as per FM I think). It's not a lax manner, just that we sometimes have two polls, for something that isn't done that regularly. Besides, in an emergency, the Director has power without polls, as per the Constitution.