Change to the Curia Votes Act

[Sétanta]

I propose a change to the Curia Votes Act that allows you to post how you voted in the Curia Votes Sub-Forum. Currently we are being forced to keep our post to a simple "Voted" rather than "Voted in Favor." It is pointless to censor people and not allow them to tell the Curia how they have voted. That said, it still needs to be maintained that no debating goes on in the Curia Vote Sub-Forum. Therefore I propose that the Curia Votes Act be changed to this:

Curia Votes Act
Once moved to vote, all bills shall be voted on over a one-week period. All Bills will be required to run for the full duration so that all Civitates may be able to vote if they so wish. Civitates are proscribed from viewing the results of any poll in the Curia they have not voted in. In addition, responses (including indirect methods such as signatures) in the Curia Vote sub-forum will be limited to notification of having voted. Posts may include how the user has voted.

An Amendment Bill shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority in favor, while an Act of Law Bill shall require only a simple majority. Abstentions are not considered when determining whether a Bill has achieved the required proportion of voters. If any Bill fails a vote, no revote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted for twenty-eight days unless the Triumvirate unanimously supports it.

Act of Law Bills may be passed to change any existing Act of Law or to enact new restrictions, ranks, procedures, or anything else not dealt with by the Syntagma. Amendment Bills shall be permitted to change any portion of the Syntagma.

I mean really, is it that big of a deal to say how you have voted? No. It is done all the time in real life and besides, it does not break the secret ballots act either.

Thoughts? Suggestion? Support or not?

[Richard the Lionheart]

I propose a change to the Curia Votes Act that allows you to post how you voted in the Curia Votes Sub-Forum. Currently we are being forced to keep our post to a simple "Voted" rather than "Voted in Favor." It is pointless to censor people and not allow them to tell the Curia how they have voted. That said, it still needs to be maintained that no debating goes on in the Curia Vote Sub-Forum. Therefore I propose that the Curia Votes Act be changed to this:


I mean really, is it that big of a deal to say how you have voted? No. It is done all the time in real life and besides, it does not break the secret ballots act either.

Thoughts? Suggestion? Support or not?

Well, the problem is that when everyone indicates how they've voted, new voters will take a look and and will vote the way everyone else has voted.

[Sétanta]

Well, the problem is that when everyone indicates how they've voted, new voters will take a look and decide to go with the flow.

I doubt that the Curia is dumb enough to do that. If I am only allowed to post "Voted" then why bother posting at all. It does help people make their decision, yes, but if then again, peoples posts in the Prothlamos can help influence voting too.

[Richard the Lionheart]

I doubt that the Curia is dumb enough to do that. If I am only allowed to post "Voted" then why bother posting at all. It does help people make their decision, yes, but if then again, peoples posts in the Prothlamos can help influence voting too.

By posting "Voted" you are indicating that you have participated in the poll.

[Sétanta]

By posting "Voted" you are indicating that you have participated in the poll.

And by posting "Voted in favor" you have indicated that you have participated and favor the proposition. I don't see the problem with that. It isn't like you are continuing the debate or doing anything that can harm the poll in any way.

[Richard the Lionheart]

And by posting "Voted in favor" you have indicated that you have participated and favor the proposition. I don't see the problem with that. It isn't like you are continuing the debate or doing anything that can harm the poll in any way.

By indicating which way you've voted you are influencing the way others vote, whether intentionally or not.

[Aristocrat]

I am in agreement with Mudd.
Anything that goes to a vote generally has already been discussed, if people are allowed to express their opinions outside of the vote why not inside?

This "it may sway people" arguement seems a little flawed to me.
What is wrong if I go to vote, and for example, see that Squeakus, tBP, Archer, and any other well known/ respected / high ranked civitate have voted a particular way. The only thing this may do is make me consider my reasons for voting a certain way, which may or may not change on further analysis. Surely people putting a little more thought into how they vote cannot be a bad thing?

People who would go to a poll, see how their favourite member voted, and follow suit, generally would not go to the poll at all, except perhaps, on the off chance they were PM'ed to go and vote in the first place.

[Spiff]

This "it may sway people" arguement seems a little flawed to me.
What is wrong if I go to vote, and for example, see that Squeakus, tBP, Archer, and any other well known/ respected / high ranked civitate have voted a particular way. The only thing this may do is make me consider my reasons for voting a certain way, which may or may not change on further analysis. Surely people putting a little more thought into how they vote cannot be a bad thing?

No you must realise the strength of peer pressure. You yourself may think along those lines but imagine the brand new Civitate, sees every single member of staff posting in a votes thread one after the other for an entire page along the lines of "Voted for, its best for the site". You dont think that will have any influence on how they vote?

Also it makes no sense to allow people to say how they voted. It is inviting discussion on their response, discussion which is meant for the prothalamos by definition. Furhter People are not supposed to know how other people voted until they vote themselves, thats why you cannot see the results of the poll before hand and thats why we have to limit responses.

[Belisarius]

I argued against the first bill till I was blue in the face and noone else did so I compromised. The way noone noticed/forgot suggests that a totally different proposal is needed. One that indicated that people have to read legislation before voting, if they dont we'll notice.

[Tom Paine]

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showthread.php?t=52358
A link to the discussion about the insertion of the line into the Act. May as well not make the same arguments twice when you can look there and read them, hm?

[Tom Paine]

It is in effect the Secret Ballots Act being made more effective; if everyone posts how they voted you just read through the responses to see how a vote is panning out, rather than looking at the results, before voting (tactical voting does happen. Let's be honest here), and this legislation would reverse the (in effect) enforcement of the Secret Ballots Act...

LV, what, do we want a quiz before we let them vote?
I mean its a good idea in principle, I agree, but its unenforceable, like the Secret Ballots Act originally was; at least what the law currently says is partially enforceable.

[Belisarius]

You'd be surprised what can be found out from as little as one sentence.

[removeduser_426582376423734]

I agree with Mudd. For example, in the Consilium Paco/Belli nominations, people nominated some members. Its obvious that the members nominated by said person will gain his vote in the election.

I don't see any reason why we can't say who we are going to vote for. There is only one argument against me - people will see certain members voting for others, and copy them. If thats the case, then those who say Civitate standards are dropping are true. We need to have faith in our fellow CVRIA members. I know I do.

[Aristocrat]

After reading that thread I can see the benefits of 'secret ballots', but I can also see the possible shortfalls.
People who may have been spurred into reading the dicussion thread simply by seeing that tBP voted one way and Squeakus another (for example) will just make an uneducated vote.
My personal feeling is that I would prefer people to have a personal opinion on the vote rather than just voting like robots...but each to their own.

[Tom Paine]

Again, no-one has adressed the problem of tactical voting, especially in elections; its a matter of preventing that, too, unless we want it.

Though I must admit that LV has an intriguing idea, the implications of which are interesting to say the least...

[Fabolous]

Wow Mudd, did you miss the bill where we just changed this?

Actually, you voted in support.



Anyways, I disagree with allowing people to see how they voted, we need to keep the curia vote section clean of infulence. You can debate and discuss in the proth.

LV, if people want to vote without knowing anything, that is there choice. When we make people civs that means they gain the right to vote and we cannot take that away, or so everyone told Kscott (with whatever his new name is) when he tried to change that.

[Belisarius]

Wow Mudd, did you miss the bill where we just changed this?

Actually, you voted in support.



Anyways, I disagree with allowing people to see how they voted, we need to keep the curia vote section clean of infulence. You can debate and discuss in the proth.

LV, if people want to vote without knowing anything, that is there choice. When we make people civs that means they gain the right to vote and we cannot take that away, or so everyone told Kscott (with whatever his new name is) when he tried to change that.

I'd rather they all abstain then!

[Sétanta]

Wow Mudd, did you miss the bill where we just changed this?

Actually, you voted in support.



Anyways, I disagree with allowing people to see how they voted, we need to keep the curia vote section clean of infulence. You can debate and discuss in the proth.

LV, if people want to vote without knowing anything, that is there choice. When we make people civs that means they gain the right to vote and we cannot take that away, or so everyone told Kscott (with whatever his new name is) when he tried to change that.

Yes I know, and now I am trying to undo that...

Sure, I understand the idea that it is possible to be influenced, but I am argueing that hopefully the Civitates voting are open minded enough to make their own decision based on the Prothlamos, which influences voting even more.

[Tom Paine]

Yes I know, and now I am trying to undo that...

Sure, I understand the idea that it is possible to be influenced, but I am argueing that hopefully the Civitates voting are open minded enough to make their own decision based on the Prothlamos, which influences voting even more.

Which should influence them even more. What happens and what we want to happen do not always co-incide.

[Sétanta]

Which should influence them even more. What happens and what we want to happen do not always co-incide.

True. But again, you are treating the Civitates like they are all mindless hooligans who want to be influenced in voting one way or another.

They reach their own decision one way or another.