Candidate Open House

[BeardofPants]

Eh? Why are members of the parties allowed to vote? If they're running for VP or minister of some-such related garbage, then they shouldn't be able to vote!

[azalea]

See that's another reason why that debate thread is annoying. Not only do non-candidates keep posting in it, but people are voting and no one but FF has participated yet! PLUS the fact that the poll isn't even accurate, because some of those people are no longer presidential candidates!
I think people don't understand -- the poll in the debate thread is to vote for who you think is winning the debate, NOT who you want to win (I mean, be president). The actual voting for president isn't for a couple of weeks!

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Eh? Why are members of the parties allowed to vote? If they're running for VP or minister of some-such related garbage, then they shouldn't be able to vote!

Well, if the election is based on say, something in the way of a US election, then everyone may vote. Candidates also may vote even for themselves if they wish.

[Radagast The Brown]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
Eh? Why are members of the parties allowed to vote? If they're running for VP or minister of some-such related garbage, then they shouldn't be able to vote!

Why? In real countries, everyone votes, if he wants to.
If Hector has more ministers, does that mean he would have less votes? It doesn't make sense.

[azalea]

But that's not the voting for president, it's voting for the debate! I don't think the participants should be voting on that myself, but of course they could vote for president. But it isn't that big a deal anyway, because there is no debate. No matter how many votes they get in that poll, it will have no bearing on the actual election.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by azalea
But that's not the voting for president, it's voting for the debate! I don't think the participants should be voting on that myself, but of course they could vote for president. But it isn't that big a deal anyway, because there is no debate. No matter how many votes they get in that poll, it will have no bearing on the actual election.

Well, I am sure all the candidates intend to answer the questions in the debate, but at the moment, only FF has done that, so why are they voting for candidates in the debate, that haven't debated and they have nothing really to base their vote on?

[Last Child of Ungoliant]

i have a question for the candidates, then:

what do you plan to make better for all mooters?

[azalea]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, I am sure all the candidates intend to answer the questions in the debate, but at the moment, only FF has done that, so why are they voting for candidates in the debate, that haven't debated and they have nothing really to base their vote on?

I guess they are either:
1. Confused, as I detailed above, or
2. Just voting based on who they want to win OR
3. Voting for themselves, which isn't really fair in a debate, since they can't objectivly judge whether or not they're winning.

I think your idea of closing it till the debate is over makes sense.

[brownjenkins]

i'm confused just reading the last few posts

still voting for hector though... i haven't disagreed with anything he's said up to this point

[Nurvingiel]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
I understand that, but the poll should be closed until the campaign is over. Maybe I am being to technical, but in a real election, votes are cast after the campaign, not during.

You could think of that as an official poll, rather than the election itself. (Which is by PM "ballots".)

This poll is accurate to 5%, 19 times out of 20...

[BeardofPants]

Originally posted by Sister Golden Hair
Well, if the election is based on say, something in the way of a US election, then everyone may vote. Candidates also may vote even for themselves if they wish.

But wouldn't this unfairly weight the election towards the larger parties who have more members, and are therefore guaranteed a larger chunk of the vote as compared to the smaller parties who only have one or two members?

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by BeardofPants
But wouldn't this unfairly weight the election towards the larger parties who have more members, and are therefore guaranteed a larger chunk of the vote as compared to the smaller parties who only have one or two members?

How so? In a US election if you are a registered voter, then you can vote. In the US, we pay more attention to the candidates themselves than the parties, and the candidates have the right to vote like every other citizen. Why would it change the balance just because they voted and are a candidate. They would still vote, candidate or not, and as a candidate, and a voter, they may vote for themselves.

[BeardofPants]

Yes, I know that. It's how the NZ elections operate as well. And I'm not talking about the presidential candidate in particular - I'm talking about the party numbers. Say one party has 5, and one party has 2, that means the bigger party has an advantage over the smaller party. It's weighted towards the bigger one, because they will get 5 votes automatically as compared to the smaller party which will only get two votes automatically. See what I mean? The only way to balance this would be to make it mandatory that every party has an equal amount of members, or with-holding the vote from party members. Of course, if you don't care about making the vote more fair because you have a large party anyway, I can see how you might be inclined to just ignore the problem. ::shrug:: In any case, as it stands at the moment, it would be in all the parties' best interests to recruit as many members as possible to secure the a bigger chunk of the vote. Hypothetically, a candidate *could* win just because they have a large party. They could just go around recruiting random Ministers of [insert activity here]. Does no one see a problem with this?

[Nurvingiel]

If a party could get that many people to commit, then that means they have a lot of support anyway.

If I wasn't allowed to run as VP ( ), I'd still vote for Hector. So what difference does it make?

[BeardofPants]

Well, yes, you have a point there...

[Sister Golden Hair]

Yeah, I do see what you are saying, but the voters outside of the party will make the difference. I know what you mean though. It's like say: Hector gets 5 votes from his staff and I get 3 from mine, yet Hector gets the majority vote of the members and wins by 2 votes. I could have won had his staff not voted. There can be many outcomes though, and I don't think that because a candidate's staff votes for their candidate, that that will guarantee their victory, although it could. It is a maybe, maybe not win, lose, situation. Does that make sense?

[Nurvingiel]

What you say makes sense SGH, but IMO if the difference between two candidates is a mere two or three votes, then we have worse problems. Like abysmal voter turnout.

[Sister Golden Hair]

Originally posted by Nurvingiel
What you say makes sense SGH, but IMO if the difference between two candidates is a mere two or three votes, then we have worse problems. Like abysmal voter turnout.

That's why I mean there could be several outcomes, depending on whether we are looking at a landslide win, or a close race. In the event of a very close race, 2 or 3 or 4 votes could make the difference.

[jerseydevil]

Originally posted by Bombadillo
Before I disect that post with harsh judgmentality and potentially break off a friendship with you over such a simple matter, what is going on between you? If I may guess, does it involve your sudden title change?

Actually it has nothing whatsoever to do with my title change. My title change is like a nursery school punishment - and deals with something else entirely. The thing with Hobbit is over multiple things and he has chosen to post these things onto the board and into every thread he can. If he wants to act like a jerk to me on the board - I can give it back to him just as easily.

[Bombadillo]

Originally posted by jerseydevil
Actually it has nothing whatsoever to do with my title change. My title change is like a nursery school punishment - and deals with something else entirely. The thing with Hobbit is over multiple things and he has chosen to post these things onto the board and into every thread he can. If he wants to act like a jerk to me on the board - I can give it back to him just as easily.

Hmmm... I was sure that I'd edited that post out and just PMed it to you, but apparently I just double posted, left it open, and PMed it to you anyway. Whoops.

Originally posted by Ruinel
errrrr... anyway....
Vote for freedom from Evil! Vote to restore Entmoot to it's beauty and glory!
VOTE FOR THE ALLIANCE OF MEN AND ELVES!!
Vote Jonathan for President and Ruinel for Vice President!!
Together again, Men and Elves, we shall unite under one banner!!

That's impossible. Everyone knows that Elves and Men can never unite again without contradicting Tolkien. I think I'll summon the Valar to forbid this from occuring. (I can do that now.) By Eru, it mustn't. Vote for Hector!