Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 11, 2013 5:12:42 GMT
Greetings to the fine people of the mighty Kingdom of Goldenvale! We have concluded the Kingdom-wide elections for Prime Minister. Many thanks to those who voted, for it helps in our floating crown project here in Nashua. It is with great pleasure that I announce my successor to be Man-at-Arms Tokwan Vaunt, known mundanely as Lou Mazzola. I would like to thank him and Duchess Quynn Fyresong for running in this election and allowing us to gather useful information. Now let’s get into the gritty details of what happened in the last week of this election. I have included the raw data as an attachment to this post as well, if you wish to skip my analysis. We had 106 players respond in this election, of whom 25 were from the Northern Empire. As per the corpora, a direct election is how the victor was chosen. For the purposes of testing, however, I also have the numbers for how an electoral college and a “one park, one vote” system would work. Let’s break it down. The direct election saw Tokwan take 80 people, while Quynn had the remaining 26. This came to 75% versus 25%, respectively. Of these votes, Tokwan won with 100% of the vote in six different parks. Of particular note is that of these parks he has only been to two: Boreal Dale and Haranshire. The candidates tied in two parks, both in the Northern Empire. For the electoral college, I assigned the following values to parks: 1 point for shires, 2 for baronies, and 3 for duchies. In the event of a tie, the value was split. In this Tokwan came away with 21 points and Quynn 7. As with the direct election, this resulted in a 75%/25% split. This system could have, however, resulted in the biggest discrepancy in comparison to the direct election, just as it is seen in the electoral college for the US. There are 28 possible votes in this system. By focusing solely on the five duchies, a candidate could have potentially won only with the Bitter Coast, Caradoc Hold, Felfrost, Goldenvale, and Wolvenfang, while entirely ignoring the rest of the Kingdom. Obviously campaigning in Amtgard is vastly different from the US as a whole, but it is still a notable issue potentially. A small handful of players at a duchy could hand a candidate the victory, even though the populace at baronies and shires voted overwhelmingly otherwise. The “one park, one vote” system is superficially similar to the US Senate, but it does rely in part upon the results in the direct election of each park. In this system each park is only assigned one point to contribute to the election. Whoever wins the majority in that park takes that point. As we have 15 parks in the Kingdom, this results in 15 potential points. As with the electoral college, tied parks had their value split between the candidates. Tokwan won with 12 of these points. This resulted in a bigger victory for him: 80% of the votes went to him. But this system, just as it may be said in the US Senate, results in smaller parks having just as much say as a duchy, even with only one member voting. As with any method, there are potential issues with any. Direct election, however, remains the best option for the foreseeable future. There were issues in this election that must be addressed. Not all chancellors were prepared for the election, despite weeks of notice. The populace didn’t seem to be aware of it in various parks, too. Is more time needed? Does the election need to be held later in the month so that more people can have voting eligibility? Each park used their own methods for voting windows. Should these methods be standardised across the Kingdom? And what happens when there are more than two candidates? The splitting of values was easily done with only two, but what of three, four, five, or even more? The electoral college and the “one park, one vote” methods quickly become cumbersome. Importantly, why did so few people vote? In addition to timing in the month and thus voting eligibility, did people not vote solely because they did not know the candidates for the most part? This would be understandable, but then it represents an issue with Kingdom-wide voting of officers in the future, as a very well-travelled candidate can then easily win over someone who is vastly better for the job. Would the numbers be different for, say, voting on event bids? Please discuss any of these findings and questions. And by all means please thank our candidates for their time! Visit us in Nashua, New Hampshire, on December 7 for the Kingdom Midreign and see Man-at-Arms Tokwan Vaunt join the officers at the head table during feast. Ever in service, Page Nydgenga Dawnbreaker Prime Minister  |
|
Gymir
Kingdom Officers
Posts: 51 
|
Post by Gymir on Nov 11, 2013 17:04:00 GMT
Cross Post from Facebook:
Eugene: I notice that this analysis does not include any votes of no confidence or abstentions. Were there any reported, and if so, I'd like to see data on that as well.
John: A vote of no confidence is oftion vs one person if I'm not mistaken and not vote ing or abstentions are not going to change the #'s you it will change the % from each group in the electoral or one park one vote. It will give each other vote in those groups more weight save that the out come would still be the same
Eugene: A vote of no confidence is a vote of no confidence no matter how many people are running, it just means that you don't think that any of them are fit for the position. It does come up most often in an uncontested election, but by no means is limited to that, and understanding how people in the kingdom feel overall is valuable in my opinion. I understand that abstentions do not effect the outcome, but I think that it's a valuable data point. I also think that the subtle difference between not voting and abstaining is important as well, it gives an indication that the person considered the options and decided to not make a vote instead of just ignoring the process completely. This has implications for voter engagement, an important consideration for implementing a broader-scale government. Essentially, I'd like to know more about the potentially large number of people not represented by votes for either candidate.
Taylor: Going off Eugene's point, I'd like to see more about how many abstentions there were so we can address were these abstentions votes of no confidence or votes where the person casting did not feel informed enough to make a proper decision. If a person is casting an abstention or even not voting at all due to the fact that they do not understand or are aware enough to make a decision, then that is something worthwhile to address in future elections. Everyone should have the knowledge to cast an educated vote.
David Graves: No where in the GV corpora does the concept of "no confidence" votes appear. I have mentioned this before and was given the argument that if you have no confidence in the person/people running, then you should just man up and run against them.However as this is a kingdom wide election where not every voter has the ability to run, perhaps this is a subject that should be addressed as part of the floating crown corpora. I know of several that were reported as "no confidence" votes. I'm assuming this was not reported since there was no such thing on the ballot because it was not covered in the corpora. I won't speak to actual numbers because I don't know them off the top of my head
|
|
Gymir
Kingdom Officers
Posts: 51
|
Post by Gymir on Nov 11, 2013 17:13:25 GMT
I am surprised that there is no mechanism for a vote of no confidence within the group. I also think that the argument that a person should run against anyone that they feel is not suited for the position is a horrible alternative. Just because I feel that someone else will make a bad officer does not mean that I necessarily think I could do a better job. I don't think that I or anyone else should be put in the position where they feel that they have to run for office as "the lesser of two evils", especially when it is such a significant commitment. This is perhaps something that needs to be considered whether or not a floating crown system is pursued in the future.
Overall I think that it is often better to have no officers than shitty officers for every position other than Prime Minister/Chancellor, and even in that case a vote of no confidence against a candidate might provoke a more suitable candidate into considering the position.
|
|
|
|
Post by Brother Fredrik on Nov 11, 2013 17:18:05 GMT
And you have pretty much echoed my response to their response. But there was not enough interest to move it forward. In addition adding a "no confidence" section then requires a "what do you if" clause as well. And not having a full complement of officers is not really an option, since Amtgard: The Kingdom of Goldenvale, Inc is required by federal law to operate in accordance to it's own bylaws. So some mechanism must be in place to fill that void or the BoD would be legally bound to step in and take some kind of action. Once again that legal non-profit status makes things a bit more than usually delt with in our "game".
|
|
Gymir
Kingdom Officers
Posts: 51
|
Post by Gymir on Nov 11, 2013 19:40:44 GMT
If the bylaws (I believe this is the Corpora?) were to have a provision for unfilled positions and how their responsibilities would be fulfilled by the existing officers there would be no legal issue. Hopefully there would be few if any cases where all candidates are unacceptable to the voting populace, and that if this was to occur at the very least the unacceptable candidates might take it as a sign that they need to improve their leadership. Honestly there really isn't a need for any of the officers other than the Prime Minister though, if that person was given the power to oversee business meetings (Althings), as they are already the fiscal agent and records keeper of the kingdom.
Typically when a result of no confidence occurs the vote is simply rescheduled and nominations re-opened, which in this case would likely be on a pro-tem basis.
|
|
Bowen
Circle of Knights
Posts: 105
|
Post by Bowen on Nov 11, 2013 21:43:45 GMT
No Confidence is missing from the Corpora because it is a shitty cop-out.
We are a volunteer run organization, and some of those jobs (especially at Kingdom level) would qualify at part or even full time. The arrogance and audacity of anyone who thinks they have the right to tell someone who completed all of the necessary steps to qualify, and volunteer, for office that they aren't good enough is so revolting, leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
The Kingdom Corpora has a procedure in place for removing unfit Officers. Unlike Votes of Confidence (which I have never seen be more than a popularity vote), removal from office punishes someone for not performing their job adequately, rather than not kissing the right asses. Votes of Confidence have never (at least in our Kingdom) resulted in a bad officer being removed that I am aware of, just in making a volunteer feel shitty, as their work (before it starts) has been classified as sub par.
Finally, the comment of "if you don't think they will do the job, run against them" is legitimate, but you need to look at it at a wider angle. It is not that you, Eugene, who may have other crap going on preventing you from running, needs to run against someone. It is that you, Eugene, as someone who theoretically wants to see your group and the game succeed should encourage others to run for Office, especially when there would be enough of a consensus to result in something as stupid as a Vote of Confidence before assuming office.
People need to get off their high horse and come back down to earth, people are not lining up to fill these positions. Rather than shitting on the ones who do, maybe a positive approach, like helping them if they do falter from the bar our groups set, is a better option.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Nexus on Nov 11, 2013 21:47:00 GMT
I can say for certain that I know there were a few no confidence votes. In all, there may have been 5 or so that were actually reported. As Nydgenga reported on Facebook, the data most definitely would have been entered into the spreadsheet had it been completely submitted by all parks. Incomplete data does not good science make.
That being said, I am overwhelmingly pleased with the progress we have made thus far. The information presented is well in line with the previous election results, therefore suggesting that however we run the numbers among our subgroups, the results are the same. While two elections doesn't present a great amount of empiricism, it is certainly enough for my blood. The system is sound.
We do not currently have a mechanism for no-confidence voting, but it most definitely will need to be addressed so that we have a process in place should this ever actually occur. I agree with Eugene's statement : "Typically when a result of no confidence occurs the vote is simply rescheduled and nominations re-opened, which in this case would likely be on a pro-tem basis."
That seems to me to be the most logical process that we would follow should a majority no-confidence vote occur.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Nexus on Nov 11, 2013 21:55:05 GMT
Finally, the comment of "if you don't think they will do the job, run against them" is legitimate, but you need to look at it at a wider angle. It is not that you, Eugene, who may have other crap going on preventing you from running, needs to run against someone. It is that you, Eugene, as someone who theoretically wants to see your group and the game succeed should encourage others to run for Office, especially when there would be enough of a consensus to result in something as stupid as a Vote of Confidence before assuming office. My sentiments exactly. Though I do agree a mechanism should be in place, I believe that we also cant be exclusive of any candidate who is willing to go through the process and do the job. I would rather see the Kingdom with some form of leadership until such a time as we can make improvements than to be without. Our organization as a whole has enough retention and organizational problems without cutting off any semblance of leadership. |
|
Gymir
Kingdom Officers
Posts: 51
|
Post by Gymir on Nov 11, 2013 21:59:30 GMT
Bowen, I know very well that there aren't many people that want to undertake the responsibilities of these positions. I don't want to be an officer of my park, I'm forced into it because no one else wants to do it and it needs to be done. That doesn't mean that because I'm the only person available that I should do a shitty job though. I take the responsibility seriously and I want to see that out of the people that represent me at higher levels as well. If I choose to make a vote of no confidence, that means that I don't think that the candidate is right for the job, that there may be better options out there, or that I feel that the person needs a wake-up call that this isn't something to be taken lightly. I'm not one to coddle someone's feelings, so I don't personally care if they get butt-hurt about how I feel about them. If everyone feels this way then there's obviously a problem whether or not you individually think someone might cry about it, so an alternative should probably be explored.
|
|
Bowen
Circle of Knights
Posts: 105
|
Post by Bowen on Nov 11, 2013 22:00:56 GMT
Votes of Confidence do two things (in a world where it then reopens for Pro-Temp):
1) It shits on volunteers who follow the process to qualify for office.
2) It shits on the process to qualify for office.
It is a shield for the cowardly and lazy to negatively affect people they don't like or to help people they do like who are unwilling to follow the group's protocols. No person, none, should be denied the chance to run for full office provided they qualify per the Corpora. Let their actions determine how their reign is viewed, not what you think their actions might be.
|
|
Bowen
Circle of Knights
Posts: 105
|
Post by Bowen on Nov 11, 2013 22:01:55 GMT
Sorry Eugene, this isn't the goddamn Minority Report. People need to do shit wrong to get shit on, not rub you the wrong way.
|
|
Gymir
Kingdom Officers
Posts: 51
|
Post by Gymir on Nov 12, 2013 1:46:55 GMT
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be able to run. The fact that we're voting on them makes it obvious that they are running for office. I don't think that merely running for office means that you should get it. Sorry, not sorry about that.
I like how you take a vote of no confidence as "people being shit on" though. Makes a lot of sense that one person's opinion that they might not be right for the job is "shitting in them". Especially when in a lot of cases these types of votes occur because they've already seen a certain person's performance in a different (or even the same) capacity and have found it wanting. i.e., I am judging them on previous offices held, not on what I think their actions might be. Sure, people can change, but they've usually got to prove it through their actions somehow before I'm willing to put my faith in them again. That whole "fool me once, shame on me," etc.
You're making the assumption that a vote of no confidence is intended to negatively effect those that you don't like or try to finagle someone into office without going through the normal qualification office. You're reading too much into this. Sometimes its just saying that you don't think that someone could or should be the person given the responsibility of a certain job.
Let's get really hypothetical right now, pull out the big guns of hyperbole because sometimes only a gross exaggeration can get through to some people. What if a person who has been suspected of stealing from the group before, but for whatever reason hasn't been banned for life, is the only person who qualifies to run for PM. Are you going to elect them and give them control of the treasury just because they're the only person that wants the job? I'm of the opinion that in certain situations, that don't necessarily have to be this serious in magnitude or potential for abuse, some people shouldn't be given an office just because they're the only person to run.
|
|
|
|
Post by Sir Nexus on Nov 12, 2013 2:40:09 GMT
I would still rather have an appointed officer who we can remove at the first sign of being shitty, rather than having no one at all. As such, I have to admit that I am rather disappointed in the fact that there were no confidence votes cast for BOTH candidates. It seems to me that logic, rather than any personal dealing with the candidates in question, should have presented a voting member with a clear choice. I will not reveal either way my reasoning for my vote, but I am unable to understand how candidates who campaigned and made themselves available for questioning could still both be snubbed for a vote. How it could be that a job that requires a weekly presence and online-record keeping for the kingdom with the occasional administration of votes could be deemed as "too hard" or "unfit a station" of both candidates. This is by no means to downplay the very under-appreciated and stressful job that the Prime Minister goes through, as I deal with it on a daily basis.  When I look for a Prime Minister, I look for someone who is heavily organized, active, and readily available (such as being next to a computer constantly and easily being able to navigate and troubleshoot issues). The results of the campaign made it a simple pick for me. |
|
|
|
Post by Tokwan Vaunt on Nov 12, 2013 3:06:16 GMT
If I could interject here and suggest that if someone has an issue with a candidate, that they take that issue up with both candidates so that they may build some confidence in at least one candidate. Lindsay and I weren't hidden, we were both accessible. Though she was traveling, she did make her rounds, posted and offered to answer questions if people had them. I had some very interesting and enlightening discussions with various people who had no clue who I was, but were interested in what I had to offer.
'No confidence' is a shitty cop-out, like Bowen said. You could have talked to me, Gymir. But, you didn't. Other people did. This is my first time in office. It's a learning experience for me. Help me build confidence by having some in me. I won't disappoint.
|
|
Bowen
Circle of Knights
Posts: 105
|
Post by Bowen on Nov 12, 2013 5:26:47 GMT
I'm not saying anyone shouldn't be able to run. The fact that we're voting on them makes it obvious that they are running for office. I don't think that merely running for office means that you should get it. Sorry, not sorry about that. I like how you take a vote of no confidence as "people being shit on" though. Makes a lot of sense that one person's opinion that they might not be right for the job is "shitting in them". Especially when in a lot of cases these types of votes occur because they've already seen a certain person's performance in a different (or even the same) capacity and have found it wanting. i.e., I am judging them on previous offices held, not on what I think their actions might be. Sure, people can change, but they've usually got to prove it through their actions somehow before I'm willing to put my faith in them again. That whole "fool me once, shame on me," etc. You're making the assumption that a vote of no confidence is intended to negatively effect those that you don't like or try to finagle someone into office without going through the normal qualification office. You're reading too much into this. Sometimes its just saying that you don't think that someone could or should be the person given the responsibility of a certain job. Let's get really hypothetical right now, pull out the big guns of hyperbole because sometimes only a gross exaggeration can get through to some people. What if a person who has been suspected of stealing from the group before, but for whatever reason hasn't been banned for life, is the only person who qualifies to run for PM. Are you going to elect them and give them control of the treasury just because they're the only person that wants the job? I'm of the opinion that in certain situations, that don't necessarily have to be this serious in magnitude or potential for abuse, some people shouldn't be given an office just because they're the only person to run. I am glad you like something about me, it gives me the warm and fuzzies. That said, maybe ease up on the assumptions. Votes of No Confidence exist to be a roadblock for people to use against qualified candidates they don't like rather than standing up and taking responsibility to give their park a choice or it is used as a tool to get their friend who doesn't want to qualify for office elected. If you don't think someone could/should be given the responsibility of a certain job then maybe you should have given your park another choice rather than attacking the only person willing to do the job. In almost all cases it doesn't result in a change of the person in the position, it only changes their office from "Full" to "Pro-Temp", so I will say again. No player, NONE, who qualifies for office according to their Corpora should be denied the chance to assume a full office. It is not your right, nor anyone else's, to decide which qualified candidates actually get to the vote in tact. If they qualify, they get to run, no strings attached.As for your hypothetical, I know gross exaggeration is kind of your home turf, so I am a little nervous about meeting you here, but I will try! Let me make sure I understand. You have a player who you clearly don't have proof took anything from the club (because proof would lead to banning of course), but you have decided he is guilty of the crime anyway. He declares for Prime Minister, and not a single member of your group says "We aren't sure about this guy, he might have something to do with those missing funds, maybe someone/I should run against him so our park has a choice"? Sounds like a group of cowardly and lazy players who want a way to screw with someone who they have no proof has done, or will do, anything wrong that doesn't require getting off their own asses. Let's return to reality though, you don't care about how you treat people volunteering for your group, and those that do you want subjected to a popularity contests for people too lazy to raise a finger just for the right to possibly be elected. Then, you complain about being "forced" to assume Office. I am sure those things aren't related though, so no worries. Clearly you can see the future and know exactly how every term will turn out, but not all of us have Doc Brown in our back pocket. Some of us are sadly not an omnipotent seer, and will have to abide by a simple idea of not punishing people for something they might or might not do. (EDIT: Not sure why this is bigger font) |
|
