Publicity of Voting Bill

**the Black Prince** · November 17, 2006, 12:05 PM

For democracy to be effective, it must be transparent. For this to happen it is required that people know who has voted, and how they have voted. It is a standing tradition in both the British Parliament and the US Congress that voting is public, and that people, should they want, can find out how people have voted.

It is my belief, and one i think is shared, that such a system should be in place on TWC also. In addition to reasons of transparency, it is also required here to allow the Curator and other patricians to adequately enforce the Syntagma with regard to patrician activity. Prima facie, total lack of activity, best characterised by lack of voting, would be in breach of the syntagma, and therefore grounds for ostrakon, though certainly, there would be good defence for those patricians who had reason to be absent.

As such, i propose that all Legislative votes of the Curia be public votes, or, if it is possible, that after a vote has closed, the Curator posts in the thread, who has voted for which option.

This amendment should not be taken to prejudicing the principle that people should not view poll results before they have voted.

**Publius** · November 17, 2006, 12:22 PM

I support this bill.

For reasons aforementioned, this will be an effective mechanism of promoting a stronger and more active Curia. Public accountability ensures some amount of thought (or a greater amount than currently, at least) will be put into the voting process.

**Wild Bill Kelso** · November 17, 2006, 12:24 PM

Sounds like a decent idea for me. However, I wonder if there could ever be a situation where a secret vote would be preferable. Perhaps it would be best to incluce a stipulation allowing secret votes should they be viewed, for whatever reason, as in the best interest of all people involved. (maybe you could hold a public pre-vote to see if a certain issue warrants a private vote-tedious I know).

**the Black Prince** · November 17, 2006, 12:36 PM

well, i've suggested this apply only to legislative votes - i.e amendments and bills... other curial votes, most notably elections would not be covered by this and remain private. i can think of no legisltative issue that may need to remain private, but i suppose discretion could always be vested in the curator to call for a secret ballot

**Professor420** · November 17, 2006, 12:39 PM

I can think of no instance that would warrant a private poll, outside of CdeC issues (whether conducted by the CdeC or the Curia, in a private forum, but would be public polls inside the hidden forum). I think, in the issue of voter influence as discussed by Mimirswell Here, amongst other places, private votes would be wise as not to influence voters, but the public votes are needed for transparency and effectiveness, as explained by tBP. So, I would support that the Curator/Pro Curator post, publically, how each Patrician voted at the conclusion of each vote (we came up with this compromise over MSN, actually).

**Perikles** · November 17, 2006, 12:39 PM

I also support this idea, it works well in the CDC...

**Tom Paine** · November 17, 2006, 12:42 PM

Except that there is also the matter of secret ballots, especially in elections. We need secret ballots on some things if not most; problems can well ensue if we do pursue this policy, and I do not want to see the reasons that a secret ballot is so important in elections get highlighted in the Curia by taking it away. Ergo I need to see a provision for secret ballots at elections before I can consider supporting this seriously.

**Rolanbek** · November 17, 2006, 02:12 PM

I support, public voting on legislation only.

I am sure that elections would generate more scandal if people knew exactly who voted for them. This is in part why the CdeC is private not public.

It would allow members to see currently forming party lines, and track those suborned into the newly formed cliques.

R

**imb39** · November 17, 2006, 05:23 PM

To be honest I like the idea of voting on legislation to be public. Voting on posts to be held, however, should remain private.

**Ragabash** · November 17, 2006, 06:03 PM

I support this bill long as this is not applied to the elections like 'the Black Prince' have mentioned before.

Question is that should the votes be made public for all the community, Citizens and above, or only for Patricians. :hmmm:

**Tom Paine** · November 17, 2006, 06:04 PM

Only Patricians, I believe, can see the Curia votes area anyway!

**Sétanta** · November 17, 2006, 08:22 PM

Only Patricians should see who voted for what. I support this bill.

**Halie Satanus** · November 18, 2006, 07:30 AM

This isn't about transparency in votes, this is just another way of putting pressure on the Patrician rank via the CdeC, i further see a problem with Patricians being targeted and influenced by others who would get a clear view of a voters likely choices in future votes. In my opinion votes should remain private to maintain the integrity of the electorate not to provide fuel for the CdeC witch hunts. I do not support.

**Publius** · November 18, 2006, 05:56 PM

Originally Posted by halie satanus

This isn't about transparency in votes, this is just another way of putting pressure on the Patrician rank via the CdeC, i further see a problem with Patricians being targeted and influenced by others who would get a clear view of a voters likely choices in future votes. In my opinion votes should remain private to maintain the integrity of the electorate not to provide fuel for the CdeC witch hunts. I do not support.

Dear Halie, the one man clamouring to give suffrage to the masses, to put trust in people, why cannot you trust the CdeC which is (by all accounts) comprised of some of the most mature and responsible members of this site?

It is an elected council with a finite term charged with making decisions which all can be vetoed by any individual member of Hex - so may we refrain from seeing every action remotely dealing with the CdeC as some massive power grab?

It has already been stated by many (and I agree) that votes such as elections would remain private, as this more so than anything is a matter of personal opinion. However, to say that you must hide behind a veil of secrecy when voting on legislation implies to me either a lack of understanding on the issues, or an apathy to discuss relevant materials, in which case that person should reevaluate if they are fulfilling the codified ideals which the patrician class are meant to embody.

**Tom Paine** · November 18, 2006, 04:54 PM

Pressure should not be levelled; precedent has been set with the tBP case (stare decisis applies, right?) that undue pressure is problematic and unbecoming behaviour, remember.

**the Black Prince** · November 18, 2006, 05:40 PM

since when has TWC had a legal system, let alone a common law legal system?

**Tom Paine** · November 18, 2006, 05:42 PM

Since it had a court of law, that's when. And if something is unlegislated precedent is the only thing one can look at, in this instance. But hey, if you think we should allow undue influence to be brought to bear on Patricians on the basis of their votes, you lost my support...

**Simetrical** · November 18, 2006, 05:53 PM

I'm not comfortable with this. Public votes work well in small bodies such as staff or the CdC, but I'm not happy with the thought of people watching who voted for their pet legislation.

On the technical side, anyone who can view the forum can view who voted for what in a public poll, so since everyone can currently view the Curia Vote, everyone could view who voted. The Curia could mandate that only Patricians and Strategoi be able to view the Curia Vote and Tabularium if they liked, although I would personally oppose such a measure.

**Halie Satanus** · November 18, 2006, 06:40 PM

This is another attempt to rid the Curia of Patricians it does not see fit to vote, this may seem harmless enough but you can't tell me that should this pass another bill won't be winging it's way though the Curia which will put even greater CdeC control on the Patrician rank. What next? time limits for Inactivity or having to explain why i voted a certain way, my explanation not good enough, "kick him out".

Judging by your closing paragraph you already think i don't have a clue what the issue is here, have you started proceedings in the CdeC?? clearly i must be purged.

My dear Publius i not only understand the issues but have discussed them at length, i can also see into the future as well, i see a Curia made up of Crandarians handing out rank demotions on a whim and badgering members with force of will all backed up by the CdeC totally legally, you don't??, and when the Patricians have been beaten into submission what next Staff has already been put in it's place by the CdeC, Hex, give them a nudge and see if they will roll over.

The first Pm i get asking me to explain why i voted a certain way will be sent to Hex with a complaint of harassment. Just want to make that clear.

Integrity isn't a veil of secrecy, it is the right of every electorate in the democratic world to exorcise their right to vote unmolested by those who hold power over them, in our case the CdeC holds power over the Curia via it's oppressive attitude to the Patricians rank.

Why don't i put trust in the CdeC, because when moves have been made by the Curia to gain transparency from the CdeC it has been defended by it's incumbents to a degree i do not feel comfortable with, that's just a personal thing though, the members are good people i even voted for some of them myself but the institution has out grown its original proviso and become a rod for the Curias own back.

It is an elected council with a finite term charged with making decisions which all can be vetoed by any individual member of Hex - so may we refrain from seeing every action remotely dealing with the CdeC as some massive power grab?

Is it also where it's members can discuss the future of the Curia while hidden away from the rest of us??, veil of secrecy indeed. Prof sent me his Manifesto i told him i wasn't keen on the CdeC discussing the Curia outside of the Curia.

The way to sort this may be a long road but i hope we can all work out possible compromises to certain issues, i also hope that any future discussion doesn't start with trying to find ways of purging the few Patricians who have no interest in the Curia.

**Publius** · November 18, 2006, 07:18 PM

This is another attempt to rid the Curia of Patricians it does not see fit to vote, this may seem harmless enough but you can't tell me that should this pass another bill won't be winging it's way though the Curia which will put even greater CdeC control on the Patrician rank. What next? time limits for Inactivity or having to explain why i voted a certain way, my explanation not good enough, "kick him out".

I'd be more in favor of judging this bill based on its merits, not on some preconceived notion I have of future legislation based on it. Don't forget that such legislation would have to go through this very same process before being enacted.

My dear Publius i not only understand the issues but have discussed them at length, i can also see into the future as well, i see a Curia made up of Crandarians handing out rank demotions on a whim and badgering members with force of will all backed up by the CdeC totally legally, you don't??,

I see for the future a responsible patrician class that makes informed decisions and debate, is open in its ideas and thoughts, and will grow into a much stronger and vibrant place than it is currently. And as most of hex remembers Crandar a far sight better than either of us I imagine, I doubt they'd allow such a system to take root if indeed that is the direction it took. Checks and balances my friend, allow us to vest such trust in others without risking the well being of the site.

Integrity isn't a veil of secrecy, it is the right of every electorate in the democratic world to exorcise their right to vote unmolested by those who hold power over them, in our case the CdeC holds power over the Curia via it's oppressive attitude to the Patricians rank.

We are a legislative body mainly, and for those elections we do hold the ideas have already been brought forth (and for the most part accepted, I think) that elections would remain private. In which case, the electorate is a fairly weak system to cite as an example, with the Senate or British Parliament being much more comprable ones. They both vote publically

Why don't i put trust in the CdeC, because when moves have been made by the Curia to gain transparency from the CdeC it has been defended by it's incumbents to a degree i do not feel comfortable with, that's just a personal thing though, the members are good people i even voted for some of them myself but the institution has out grown its original proviso and become a rod for the Curias own back.

I can't argue your opinion - if that's how you feel then I am sad that such feelings exist between the CdeC and Curia, but I accept your opinion for what it is.

Is it also where it's members can discuss the future of the Curia while hidden away from the rest of us??, veil of secrecy indeed. Prof sent me his Manifesto i told him i wasn't keen on the CdeC discussing the Curia outside of the Curia.

An interesting syllogism. At one time Prof discussed something in the CdeC first, ergo the entire CdeC as a body must constantly plot and make designs about the future of the Curia behind their backs.

As a side note, if we keep up this "dear" business we may have to apply for a marriage license.