View Topic

What is the basis of your belief?

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.

I just don't want to pepper Moot with work.

I have, in fact, been hounded about who I've voted for in the past when I chose to vote privately.

What is the basis of your belief?

The recent special election. Pengu was leading until a string of votes came in to secure Laurentus victory. I'm not saying that is bad, I just believe that if votes are secret and we don't know how other people actually voted the results might be different. I can't specifically prove this without a test case.

We have seen how voting publicly can influence other things like Citizen of the Month.

It's not a pleasant experience to go against the herd, and compulsory private voting allows one to do so without suffering the backlash of being recognized for doing so.

I have, in fact, been hounded about who I've voted for in the past when I chose to vote privately.

Who has hounded you over this? I would genuinely like to know the details.

What if people started discussing their votes, or a prominent member decides to discuss their vote and why they voted that way, as some have done in the past? In the absence of public votes from others, wouldn't those people have an outsized influence over how others voted, assuming that people are voting based on popularity or by how others are voting?

One would think the problems of the past couple of hours displays it clearly enough that people are afraid to speak up and vote in the way they'd actually prefer to.

If you're not publicly being put on the spot, you can apply your own thoughts, instead of being fearful of going against the herd. It's been proven that people are much more willing to rely on themselves when voting in private.

Even when someone who speaks with natural authority does speak and try to influence something in a certain way, he can't do so on charm (or boorishness) alone when he doesn't know who's voting in any specific way.

I have, in fact, been hounded about who I've voted for in the past when I chose to vote privately.

I've never voted publicly in an election, and no one's even so much asked me who I voted for, so I'm not sure where the backlash is on that. In fact, I prefer to do so because that way I don't improperly influence people, even though I could easily command some clout around here.

I have no doubt it's a problem not everyone will face. It's something I have faced though, and something that has pushed me to be more in favour of voting in public, even though I'd prefer to do it in private, if only to spare people's feelings.

We are not completely rational beings, and the sparing of feelings is something that should enter into our equations (even if it doesn't always), since we can't wish our feelings away either.

Sure, we can develop thicker skins and be less concerned about how our actions influence others, but that leads to apathy over time.

In the end so much drama just isn't worth it, even for the sake of transparency. I do believe people are smart enough to realise when something they're doing just doesn't resonate with voters if they see the statistical results of secret ballot voting consistently not aligning with them.

I've never voted publicly in an election, and no one's even so much asked me who I voted for

That's the point, isn't it? If everyone is voting privately, there wouldn't be as much hounding.

Does anyone else have an opinion? So far Barnes, Saphh, Moot and Laurentus have commented more than once. Am I to assume that the rest are indifferent?

It has only been 3 hours, give it some time.

Not enough time has actually gone by to get a sense of where we're at. Josh is a man of few words too, so even if he only says something once, he'll likely opt not to repeat himself when he feels he's made his point.

I have, in fact, been hounded about who I've voted for in the past when I chose to vote privately.

Who has hounded you over this? I would genuinely like to know the details.

What if people started discussing their votes, or a prominent member decides to discuss their vote and why they voted that way, as some have done in the past? In the absence of public votes from others, wouldn't those people have an outsized influence over how others voted, assuming that people are voting based on popularity or by how others are voting?

Safe to say I agree with what Wintermoot is hinting at here; thought I'll expand it a little further, this at least when votes can be public if someone see's a lot of votes then that is actual popularity, if it is all 100% private it turns the "well everyone else is doing this" peer pressure argument into a "he said, she said situation" until numbers are released. Especially as some people would doubtless still post who/what they are voting for in the discussions.

The main thing we want to protect is opinions, if someone is indifferent as is influenced by popularity that isn't too much of a loss, but if someone is critical and doesn't voice their views then that's an issue. And that affects the debates not the votes, the way I see this is it would allow a less objective and easier to control debate and I would prefer a more open and free discussion.

One would think the problems of the past couple of hours displays it clearly enough that people are afraid to speak up and vote in the way they'd actually prefer to.

If you're not publicly being put on the spot, you can apply your own thoughts, instead of being fearful of going against the herd. It's been proven that people are much more willing to rely on themselves when voting in private.

Even when someone who speaks with natural authority does speak and try to influence something in a certain way, he can't do so on charm (or boorishness) alone when he doesn't know who's voting in any specific way.

This goes paragraph for paragraph by the way, so you aren't confused which part I am talking about )
Actually the thing about the recent debate is I believe it were a closed voting process it wouldn't have happened at all, it was the show of solidarity of seeing the negative votes that convinced me to speak out, I don't know about others, but it could quite well be something similar.

But the thing is; you can vote privately, and I haven't really seen that many people be interrogated about private votes, (me included when I have voted privately). So if people can already vote in private I don't see why this would be so different.

I think you are underestimating people's abilities to be charming and boorish; I have been involved in quite a few IRL elections, (obviously with entirely secret ballots) and people still managed to talk to others as if they were assured victory and that it was only a matter of time, and there was no way to confirm if that was true or not, until numbers are released.

Does anyone else have an opinion? So far Barnes, Saphh, Moot and Laurentus have commented more than once. Am I to assume that the rest are indifferent?

I do apologize but all this was going on very early morning for me, and while I know it's rare I actually do sleep sometimes.