Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="fusangite" data-source="post: 3332080" data-attributes="member: 7240">Eyebeams, first of all, I am kind of surprised that you have not replied to my previous post on this thread. It seems to me that much of your reasoning is a result of conflating the categories of awarding organization and sponsoring organization.However, as to this point, I was specifically tasked two years ago with dealing with the problem of incumbency on the panel. After a lot of work, we have completely changed the electoral system from last year to this. It seems very presumptuous on your part to assume that the problems with elections held under a multi-member plurality system that showed interim results throughout the voting process will continue under an STV system with hidden results. Why don't you wait to see if the reforms we have already instituted work before proposing additional ones?I believe that by instituting these reforms, we will weaken incumbency by, among other things, enabling anti-incumbent voters to concentrate their votes much more effectively. STV, as a system is known worldwide for having this property and is loathed by political insiders for exactly this reason. Australian and Irish legislators routinely attempt to abolish STV only to be quickly put in their place by voters. And nobody who deals with STV systems ever talks about the need for term limits because they seem totally unnecessary.Rotation and/or absolute or consecutive term limits tend only to be instituted in jurisdictions that have highly pro-incumbent voting systems. If you want to talk about the flaws of the ENnies election system or suggest solutions, I recommend that you examine the system we have now, rather than continuing to try and fix a system we have abandoned.</blockquote>

Verification