If there are 3 seats open in the Parliament and only 3 candidates running, like the current situation, will a election be held, considering that there is currently one candidate to a seat atm? _________________ Mr. Dervin, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Devonia
I suggested that The Whole of the Populace vote on each Individual Seat. That will work for now. _________________ His Royal Majesty King Rafael II of the House of Aluveaux. Consul of Etampes, Prince of Arretium, Prince of Apulia, The Duke of Calabria, The Duke of Devon, The Duke of Lavinium, and The Duke of York.
First and foremost, An Election for 3 seats where there are 3 candidates is, in my opinion, quite pointless as there is no competition between the seats and therefore the election would be a "Show" Election and nothing more, it will not decide who gets the seats nor will it rule anyone out of the election. Therefore, I would strongly urge the King that if there is NO more candidates after the Deadline for Candidancy Announcments has passed that the King appoint the current 3 Candidates to the 3 seats in the Parliament without an empty election, which will quite frankly be a waste of everyone's time.
Secondly, having read the constitution and the current laws in Devonia, I see no Law which currently limits the Seats to three seats in the Parliament. Therefore, as the King has not made a Decree or the Parliament Passed an Act regading the limiting of the seats, the current seating of the Parliament is at its Maximum Limit, without restriction of any kind. Therefore, unless the King makes a Decree before the Election Deadline regarding that the Next Parliament will have X amount of seats, then the Parliament seats will have no restriction for its next term.
So, therefore, the King must make this Decree and No else in the Kingdom bar an Act of Parliament has the Power to limit the Seating arrangments (not even the PM). Also, I would like to request that the King make there be 5 seats in the Parliament to allow future citizens a chance to join and be part of the Parliament at a later date.
Thus, if there is no-one else interested in running for this election, I ask that the appointments be made as the candidate will be deemed elected without opposition. _________________ Mr. Dervin, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Devonia
I suggested that The Whole of the Populace vote on each Individual Seat.
This is the sort of thing I meant when I asked which electoral system we should use. Personally, I don't think that the whole populace voting on each seat individually would be appropriate. As things stand at the moment, we have three candidates, and three seats, so this would mean one candidate standing for each seat, and each candidate would inevitably be elected. BUT we really should consider how we would do this if we had more candidates. For example, if George turns up again and registers to vote, we'll have a situation where two candidates are competing for one seat, and the remaining two seats will have one candidate each who will each be inevitably elected. If you mean that all candidates should stand for election in each seat, and the whole population votes on each seat, this would almost certainally result in the same candidate winning each seat, which would completely undermine the concept of a democratic Parliament.
When the population has increased, we would ideally be able to introduce either a system of proportional representation or split the Kingdom into electoral constituencies, which citizens would be assigned to upon obtaining citizenship, who would elect their own MPs.
For this election, I really think that the only practical way is, as you say, is to make the whole Kingdom a single electoral area, but I think the only way would be to use an electoral system that allows multiple seats to be contested in one election. I've done some research into this, and there are four main ways to do this:
1. The Block Vote
This works like the 'First-Past-The-Post' system used in UK and USA, but voters are given as many votes as there are seats contested.
For this election, we would put all candidates on one list, and all citizens would be given three votes. The three candidates with the most votes would each win a seat.
2. The Limited Vote
Exactly the same as the Block Vote, but voters are given less votes than there are seats contested, but more than one. Usually they are given one less vote than the number of seats.
For this election, we would put all candidates on one list, and all citizens would be given two votes. The three candidates with the most votes would each win a seat.
3. The Single Non-Transferrable Vote
The same as 'First-Past-The-Post' voting, but for multiple seats elections. Voters are given one vote, but multiple candidates are elected.
For this election, we would put all candidates on one list, and all citizens would be given one vote. The three candidates with the most votes would each win a seat.
4. List Proportional Representation
All parties produce a list of candidates. If someone wishes to stand independently, they must either find others to stand with them (effectively forming a party), or be a single-person list. Voters choose one party to vote for, and seats are allocated according to the number of votes for each party. Seats are allocated to individuals according to where they stand on the party's list - top of the list gets the first priority. We would have to decide how to deal with a situation when a party wins more seats than it has candidates.
I think that this system would be completely impractical for this election, as we have no parties with more than one candidate as yet.
5. The Single Transferrable Vote
One of the more complicated systems, but popular in countries that use it. Voters rank as many candidates as they like in order of preference - ranking more candidates does not affect the chances of those further up the list. Here is an explanation of the counting procedure:
To be elected, a candidate must have exceeded a particular 'quota' of the number of votes. The percentage quota is: 100 / (number of seats + 1)
In our case, the quota would be 25%, and the number of seats would be 3.
The counting takes place in rounds, until all three seats have been allocated.
In the first round, the number of first choice votes are counted. If three candidates each have over 25% of the vote, they are elected.
If no candidates have over 25% of the vote, the candidate with the least number of votes is eliminated, and their votes are reallocated to their second choice candidate.
If one or two candidates have over 25% of the vote, they are elected. The number of votes they have over 25% is calculated, and from that the percentage of their votes that were surplus is calculated. If 10% of a candidates votes were surplus, each vote for them would be 'split' so that each vote would count as 0.9 votes for them (leaving them with 25% exactly) and the remaining 0.1 votes would move to the second choices.
In the second round, votes are counted after reallocation. If all candidates have not been elected after the second round, the same procedure applies. If no new candidates have been elected, the lowest candidate is eliminated and votes reallocated; if another candidate has been elected, but not all, votes are divided and the surplus reallocated. If a vote is already on its second choice, the third choice is used, and so on. The process continues until three candidates are chosen.
The purpose of the STV is to reduce the need for tactical voting by preventing votes from being wasted. Votes for a popular candidate who is 'bound to be elected' are not wasted because the surplus is reallocated to a second choice, and votes for an unpopular 'no-hope' candidate are likely to be reallocated if a candidate is eliminated.
I know it's really complicated, but I personally think the Single Transferrable Vote is a good system. This website: www.demochoice.org lets anyone conduct (for free) an election using the Single Transferrable Vote system, so no-one would have to go through the complicated system themselves. It also allows Single Non-Transferrable elections.
Anyway, as the King says, there would have to be a vote in Parliament on which system to use before the next election. Anyway, there are the options, so can we please decide where this election is going?
And don't say 'nowhere fast'!!! _________________ Christopher Wright MP
Deputy Prime Minister
I notice that as I was writing my last mammoth of a post, Mr. Dervin made his suggestion above that the current three candidates should simply be appointed if no further candidates register.
Realistically, if there were to be only three candidates, they would end up being elected no-matter what the outcome. However, as I think somebody said previously, if we don't start running things as closely as we can to how we would if we had more citizens, no-one else will want to apply because it will look like we are never going to start functioning as a nation. I say that we should stage an election, even if it is just to prove that we are politically active. _________________ Christopher Wright MP
Deputy Prime Minister
In my own opinion, our Actions and Activity in the Parliament and in the Ministries of HM Government will prove we are politically active, rather than an election. However, if others think that it will show we are politically active, then I am all for the election, if it will benefit Devonia! _________________ Mr. Dervin, Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Devonia
I believe we should hold the election. I really do not want an appointed Parliament at any time. The King and I posted back and forth several times about that very issue.
I'm glad both of you are here - but even before you were here the King offered to simply appoint me as the Parliament. As at that time I remain opposed to an appointed Parliament.
Once the Parliament is seated the debate about which type of election to hold certain should be on the floor.
Hmm Wright, those are some good examples. Im still somewhat lost on the Transferable one, but it seems good _________________ His Royal Majesty King Rafael II of the House of Aluveaux. Consul of Etampes, Prince of Arretium, Prince of Apulia, The Duke of Calabria, The Duke of Devon, The Duke of Lavinium, and The Duke of York.
I once was Election Commissioner in a micronation where we used STV, so I have experience using the system. I’m sure whoever has the position of conducting the next election will be able to use whichever system the Parliament places into law.
If that person thinks they are unable to administer the system chosen we can either teach them, help them, or select another person for the job.
I'm thinking I can send a code out with each ballot this election and give the results via that code right away. It doesn't make too much sense to wait until the next election - what good is a protest of the election after the whole term has been served!
Does anyone object to this method of verification? _________________ Austi Scot MP
Royal Chancellor
Order of Devonia
---
I have no objection _________________ His Royal Majesty King Rafael II of the House of Aluveaux. Consul of Etampes, Prince of Arretium, Prince of Apulia, The Duke of Calabria, The Duke of Devon, The Duke of Lavinium, and The Duke of York.
You can post new topics in this forum You can reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
