View Topic

I think that incremental reform is necessary. If the Starting Reformation Act fails, and it looks like it will, we should start small. Starting with Closed Ballots. Now, I think closed ballots will remove some pressure from people who don't want their votes known. If you wish to announce your vote you may. But voting itself should be secret. I propose that the OH members become an election committee that will receive votes together via PM, to ensure no vote tampering. I suggest that we put it on a probationary period, if in the next election it works then we make it permanent .If you fail to share your opinion now please do not be surprised if I completely ignore you later. I will keep this open as long as I can.

Your thoughts.

I'm taking a step back and not commenting on anything to do with legislative work until I can get my head screwed on straight again. Even though I agree with secret ballots as a matter of principle.

I can agree with this.  While I have some reservations, I'm very much more against people being hounded over the way they choose to vote...which secret ballots would abolish that.

At the moment, I do believe Wintermoot is in charge of tabulating private votes, though if everyone else is going to vote privately then ...

I don't find any issue with private voting since that way no one can be pinpointed for the success or failure of the passing of a particular bill. Being granted anonymity is a boon, and I don't really care if someone intends to use his/her vote (by announcing it publicly) to influence others into voting with him/her. That said, what you are suggesting is compulsory private voting, while allowing people to announce their votes right?

I also approve of closed ballots. It would prevent bandwagons in voting for as well as not voting for certain people.

I would think it'd just be easier for Wintermoot to receive all of the votes, though, as he already currently receives private votes, and it'd be more organized since all votes would go to only one rather than 4 people.

And in agreement with Sapphiron, I'd be ok with people announcing their votes as it'd just be like endorsing a candidate.

I specifically like the provision where the Overhusen becomes responsible for the election committee. It makes sense that we would need more than one person to be accountable; not that I don't trust @Wintermoot, but it seems a bit surprising for just a single person to report a vote count, hence multiple poll workers per precinct, at least in the United States. However, because of the trust we all have for him, it wouldn't be a bad thing if he still received all of the votes, which would be the more likely option to get this to pass.

Agreed with Sapph and Gerrick.

I'm not sure what this applies to...people can already vote privately in elections if they want to.

If I am reading the suggestion correctly, North intends to make private voting compulsory. At the moment, if everyone else is voting publicly and a couple vote privately, it's much easier to pinpoint those who voted privately and how they voted.

The proposal is to make it a mandatory private ballot. (Thanks Sapphiron for beating me by twenty-three seconds!)

I'm sorry, what? There's no real tangible benefit to this and it's rife for abuse.

If you want to vote privately you already can; forcing a private ballot simply takes away an option and makes it less obvious when voting blocs and factionalism are in play.

If anything, the ability to cast a private ballot should be taken away to force everything to be transparent.

At the moment, I do believe Wintermoot is in charge of tabulating private votes, though if everyone else is going to vote privately then ...

I don't find any issue with private voting since that way no one can be pinpointed for the success or failure of the passing of a particular bill. Being granted anonymity is a boon, and I don't really care if someone intends to use his/her vote (by announcing it publicly) to influence others into voting with him/her. That said, what you are suggesting is compulsory private voting, while allowing people to announce their votes right?

Yes.

Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I've read the topic a few times and I don't understand what problem this is supposed to solve. I doubt it would change the fact that popularity plays into elections, and while there's a decent chance to at least guess some of the people voting privately, I thought the real issue is that people still wouldn't know how they voted. And has anyone really been hounded over choosing to vote privately?

I'm sorry, what? There's no real tangible benefit to this and it's rife for abuse.

If you want to vote privately you already can; forcing a private ballot simply takes away an option and makes it less obvious when voting blocs and factionalism are in play.

If anything, the ability to cast a private ballot should be taken away to force everything to be transparent.

I disagree and would like to test my hypothesis.

Maybe I'm just not getting it, but I've read the topic a few times and I don't understand what problem this is supposed to solve. I doubt it would change the fact that popularity plays into elections, and while there's a decent chance to at least guess some of the people voting privately, I thought the real issue is that people still wouldn't know how they voted. And has anyone really been hounded over choosing to vote privately?

It's a small step. I want to see how voting is effected, I believe that there would be a change.