Ammendment: Revealing of Voting

[Arakorn]

All right, my first bill, wish me luck and correct my errors.

• Proposer: Arakorn-eir
  
  Supporters:
• Milites (Patricians): Setarcos Aneist
• Burgenses (Citizens):

Article 2 Section 3

----------
When a bill is moved to vote, the debate thread is left open, and the Curator shall post the newest draft of the bill, the name of the Proposer, the Bill's 3 named supporters, and a link to the debate, as a new poll in the Camera Suffragii forum. All bills shall be voted on for one week. Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted. Messages lobbying to vote for or against, including via Signatures and Avatars, are prohibited except in the original debate thread. All bills shall pass on the basis of a two-thirds majority of non abstaining votes in favour. If any bill fails a vote, no re-vote on a substantially similar bill will be permitted within twenty-eight days.

--------

The deleted section really serves no purpose. I mean, the supporters are named in the voting thread, so the chances that they'd vote against are pretty slim (though in theory, it happens, for example delaying a second vote of such a bill is used in real parliaments). Everyone can just go back to the debate thread, and see what everyone is going to vote for.

I would also accept that we'd forbid the ability to post in the voting-threads, but I remember this failing a few weeks or months ago. So, I decided to try this version.

Furthermore, since when has a) commercials/lobbying for a vote been forbidden (in real life. Isn't that what we're supposed to imitate here, in a downsized version?), and b) elections are secret, but that doesn't mean that people can't revela what they've voted for!

[Flavius Nevitta]

I'd leave the "Subsequent posts in this thread, are limited to notification of having voted" in there.

1st of all because we already have a discussion thread and we don't need 2 threads discussing the same thing.

2nd I think it's good that the actual voting thread is only for voting and kept clean of any discussions. People SHOULD have read the discussion here before they vote anyways and any posts in the voting thread would just influence people's decisions. It's important not to know the exact results before you vote, imho. If everyone states his opinion or choice in the vote this will influence people's voting behaviour.

[Arakorn]

Isn't that the idea then? (Last sentence)

I agree that it should be kept to voting, and that's why posting there could be forbidden too. But to me it seems stupid to not be allowed to say what you're voting for. So should we change it to "only 1 reply/citizen" in the voting thread?

[the Black Prince]

if you have a long stream of voted yes people will see it and perhaps not see the point of voting no, or just vote yes because everyone is. the point of the restriction was to go some way to prevent that

[Halie Satanus]

This again!!.

Opposed for the same reasons i was opposed the last two or three times this was proposed.

[deRougemont]

Opposed.

For the reason tBP stated above.

[imb39]

No.

[Leonidas The Lion]

I also appose because of tBPs reasons.

[Fabolous]

Now then, if you looked in a vote thread and saw those last 6 or so posts completely against this idea, what happens to the chance of you supporting it? For many users, it probably drops signifigantly.

[Shaun]

I say no to this. Yes, the supporters of a bill are named, but they are few. The idea of keeping votes private is a good one, its needed, its needed so that there are no fights based on what people vote, its needed so that there is absolutely no debate that goes on in the curia votes subforum. What about ratification votes? Knowing who voted 'no' for you to be a mod could be quite hurting. I dont think this is a good idea.

[Silver Guard]

Support, not just because I'm contraversial
Its a hell of a lot more useful then the mindless 'voted' which boosts many member's post count. The debate thread is there, people can see who is against and who is for, if they're not influenced by that, then they're not likely to be influenced by the voting thread.
Being able to post meaningful arguments there is a return to a less forceful version of Prof's last ideas, it allows the arguments for and against to be formed concisely and subjectively by each individual in a far more informative way then the constant side-to-side of the proth.

[imb39]

Support, not just because I'm contraversial
Its a hell of a lot more useful then the mindless 'voted' which boosts many member's post count. The debate thread is there, people can see who is against and who is for, if they're not influenced by that, then they're not likely to be influenced by the voting thread.
Being able to post meaningful arguments there is a return to a less forceful version of Prof's last ideas, it allows the arguments for and against to be formed concisely and subjectively by each individual in a far more informative way then the constant side-to-side of the proth.

Then get rid of the voted option and ban all posting. Gah! We already have a thread for discussing the ammendment and you can post in there how you voted.

I have yet to hear one coherent reason that justifies the removal of this requirement. Before people bleat on and on about Citizens being able to think for themselves, well hogwash - we are all human beings and it is not uncommon for people to look at names and rethink. Why on earth we need a second thread discussing the merits of some aspect of legislation is quite beyond me. There is enough hot air without another vent being opened up.

If you are so hell bent on this then the most practical way is to make legislative votes public and elections private and ban all comments (including voted).

[Gaius Baltar]

Support, not just because I'm contraversial
Its a hell of a lot more useful then the mindless 'voted' which boosts many member's post count. The debate thread is there, people can see who is against and who is for, if they're not influenced by that, then they're not likely to be influenced by the voting thread.
Being able to post meaningful arguments there is a return to a less forceful version of Prof's last ideas, it allows the arguments for and against to be formed concisely and subjectively by each individual in a far more informative way then the constant side-to-side of the proth.

Yes, and perhaps a 500 word essay to detail the reasoning behind the members vote!!

Right!!!

[kshcshbash]

Nevaaaaar!

Well, I just mean no. nevaaaaaaar sounds cooler.
For the reasons above.

[Simetrical]

No. Partly for bias reasons, also because we used to effectively have people discussing the bill in the vote section in parallel with discussions in the proposals section.

[Hotspur]

Oppose for just about every reason listed above.

I like the "voted" threads because I have too much going on IRL to remember what I've voted on and what I haven't. If we ever develop a legislative calendar then I can see dropping the "voted" post, but until then...