The difference is one is part of a larger, longer set of instructions while the other is a single sentence in a spot you can’t easily scroll past. There’s a reason tl;drs exist.
The number of people who cast an invalid vote in the last delegate election was two. The number of people who cast an invalid PM vote in the corresponding PM election was nine. Clearly this is a problem that has existed for quite a while, but it doesn’t seem like many people are repeat offenders.
What are the tallies of invalid votes for the July 2023 and Jan 2023 Delegate and PM elections?
Also why did the format for approval ballots change from and in the Jan 2023 delegate election to an X or lack of one in the July 2023 delegate election? Was it just how voters input it or did the ballot template change?
Oh, interesting. At this point I think we’re tackling the wrong issue here. We don’t need to change the voting system, we need to help people get informed about it before they vote.
It doesn’t matter who’s to blame, honestly. If there is a problem and there is something we can do to reduce the negative impacts generated by it, then we should have done it a long time ago.
Interesting, the results were reversed last elections, PM, had more invalid, then Delegate, now how is there a sudden change? Most guessing last time delegate was posted first, and then when they got to PM, it was the same situation, as this election. However it doesn’t change the fact that the ballot needs to be unified so that their is no confusion, and that their will be no invalid or at least, at lot, lot less invalid votes. It doesn’t matter if it was PM, last election that got the invalid votes, and know it’s Delegate this election, clearly the voting system needs to be changed to be unified so their is no confusion next election.
I mean though, why is that clear? I don’t see why we can’t at least try to do something else before attempting to pass legislation on it?
Their isn’t really that much we can do, and ideas we gotten were quickly shot down, our best bet right now is through legislation.
There’s a lot we can do, I don’t see what’s stopping us from doing it.
What’s stopping us from doing it, is that most people probably think, the right way to go is through legislation and changing the voting system.
The reason making the voting systems the same is proposed is because it has been proposed before, it is an entirely valid method.
The interpretation of invalid ballots will be relevant for as long as there are or there is the possibility of invalid ballots from a voter with a genuine intent to vote. As for legislation about voters failing to cast valid votes in general, sometimes legislation is the easy option. People also like an active legislature. There are a host of reasons why skipping from nothing to legislation is an entirely valid move to make. I do agree that there are probably a bunch of changes that could address the problem without legislation, but there’s no harm in making something legislation. If it doesn’t work the assembly can always remove it later.
The issue is that the legislation is likely to be heavily contested, and is by no means guaranteed to pass, whereas spreading awareness, while it may raise some grumbles, is in no way contestable unless you’re really doing something wrong, allows people to demonstrate leadership and teamwork skills, and generally get involved more closely than saying “yay” or “nay.” In this case, I’d say that it actually does feel easier than passing the legislation, and the fact that we’ve come to this twice already seems like jumping the gun a bit.
Now that I think of it, would we need to pass legislation to add a guide/tutorial after every accepted citizen application?
From what I read, rudeness seems to be the standard tone of all TSP debates (and, to be fair, all debates on the internet)
I was taking it a too far though, to be fair
You do have excellent points. There are some aspects of this discussion I would like to see codified in law (namely something on how to interpret invalid ballots when clear intent is available), but there are many things we can and should do on top of that that don’t need to be legislation and you point stands strong for those.
I can agree with you on that
Just one last post before I log off for the night, I think we also tend to look over the fact that approval voting makes more sense for the forums Delegate elections. Whereas the PM is elected directly based on the results, the forums-based Delegate election is sort of like a primary (or it would be, if more people ran) to choose who goes into the second part, the NationStates-based Delegate election, which does directly elect the Delegate. A Delegate candidate could get the most first preferences under IRV here and lose by a landslide in the second vote, the specific preferences just don’t matter at that stage.
In some sense, I can agree on that, however, I think it’s harder to understand, at least for me.
Yes, completely agree, however if this bill passes, let’s say, and Delegate does turn into IRV, like PM, would we really need the Second round then? It is most likely in the Elections Act, and most likely it would be a yes, but this is what I am thinking of right now.
The reason there are two rounds is because since the delegate is such a gameside facing position the entire region needs to have a say in who becomes delegate. The second round takes place as a regional poll. It is in the elections act.
Thank you, for clarifying.
That’s understandable, that’s why we included the explanations, and why I think we’d benefit more from better informing our voters on the voting system as opposed to trying to change it entirely.