considering the amount of air-time the potential candidates have been getting...

[overlord-mordax.livejournal.com]

This is going to sound a little dumb, but my friend brought up an amusing issue the other day.

Should multiple systems be allowed separate voting rights for separate people? My initial thought is a big 'no!' because that system would be ripe for abuse, no matter how neat an idea it is at first glance.

That said, those of you in systems who care about outside government, how do you decide who gets to vote? Do you ever get in in system arguments about politics?

If the government *would* give each person in your system the vote, would you even want it?

Just a few thoughts.

-David

Comments

[threedog.livejournal.com]

Considering in my own reality I'm a wanted felon, and here I'm a fictional character, no thanks.

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

Faith: *smirks* there's a line from my fandom, "Got a bed for a wanted fugitive?"

That so reminded me of that. *winks* (by the way, the line's said by...Faith

I know whatcha mean. *hugs* miss ya.

[liferain.livejournal.com]

Vi follows politics, I do not.
However, I have not registered to vote (nor will I ever), and thus Vi has agreed that, since she just borrows me body, she will not as well.

I'm not sure how it works for other systems.

[liferain.livejournal.com]

my body*

[weirdiguess.livejournal.com]

I don't think seperate votes would be a real good idea. It wouldn't really work.

The people who care about voting get to do it. If people have an arguement, they sort it out and then they vote. Pretty normal stuff really. Can't say we'd want it, it'd mess with the voting system too much.

[rabbitsystem.livejournal.com]

The trouble with seperate voting is that you'd have no way to enforce it. You can say 'Body X gets Y votes', but when body X walks in and casts those Y votes, who's to say it wasn't one person doing it all, and thus cheating the system?
I'm not saying that would be the norm. But I'm sure there are plenty of systems with a member or two who would cast votes that weren't theirs.

[browncoatrebel.livejournal.com]

Hmm, interesting question.

We don't think it would work to have multiple votes for multiple folks. I mean, if the government's involved, you'd have to fill out forms in triplicate from every doctor who's ever looked at your chart to prove your multiplicity, and all kinds of crap like that.

Our system as a whole identifies as Libertarian, with certain members who have their own slant on it. (Also quite a few who don't care or don't understand politics.) We tend to have to write in our candidates because of the ballot access laws here.

As for how we decide, we come to a collective agreement among those who care. We haven't yet hit a situation where we've deadlocked, so it works for us.

Kate

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

In our search to discover a political affiliation, we've been leaning toward Libertarian as well.

Jenilee T.

[browncoatrebel.livejournal.com]

We won't join any political party on principle, but we mostly lean toward Libertarian. It's kind of funny when you get us into a political conversation when we're being switchy, because we'll not only argue both sides but a third and fourth as well. In criminal justice last semester, someone asked if I was "schizo or something" because we were doing it. :-/

Kate

[stealthdragon.livejournal.com]

Only one of us cares about politics, and it's not me. My write-in would be along the lines of "Death to evil slugs!"

Cheers,
- Es

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

Voting rights would not work. Group consensus instead.

Same with driver's license and SSN -- have to be considered group property, under the legal name (there is nothing that says you can't change your legal name to your group's or House name).

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

heh we were pondering the reaction the general populace would have to a first name of "Pack" and a last name of "Collective".

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

Sometimes when we sign up at various online sites we'll put "Kasiya" as the first name and "Epitome" as the last name. One site recently wouldn't let us put "Group" as the last name, said it was invalid. ::laughing::

Jenilee T.

[ksol1460.livejournal.com]

We've been using "Astraea" as first name and "Household" or "House" as last name on online sign-ups for years. ;)

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

It's funny this subject came up because our group was recently trying to figure out which American political affiliation we'd be if we had to answer this question with someone.

I believe that there should only be one vote per body. How could anyone prove just how many people would be in their group? A group could say they have 500 people. Does that mean they get 500 votes just because they say there are that many? And who's to say someone who isn't Plural comes in and says they are Plural just so they can get more votes?

Our group avoids politics whenever we can so even if various individuals were given the opportunity to vote we probably wouldn't take it.

Jenilee T.

My two cents.

[forever-alone.livejournal.com]

One body, one vote. We don't expect separate social security numbers, separate IDs, etc. and we don't expect to have separate voting rights. Like someone above said, how could you even prove how many people are in your system? What would stop people from lying about it just to gain a political advantage?

I'm the one who votes in our system because I'm the one who's out most. Most of the others don't care, but I'm sure a few of them wouldn't mind getting a chance to vote.

[crystalseraph.livejournal.com]

We all have quite different political and religious views here. Voting is compulsory in Australia, so that vote is between me and Tahl. Shad and Rachael vote in their own realms as citizens and have no real interest in Australian politics.

[liedownlovely.livejournal.com]

I am the only one in my household who follows politics, though we all have different political views. Not many of them are willing to get into a debate with me over the subject.

As others have said, multiple votes for multiple systems wouldn't work. Since we're being hypothetical? Four out of six of us would probably vote if we were permitted.

-Jacques

[schadendox.livejournal.com]

You know, now would be a bad time to bring up the subject of taxes.

[mirrorbrothers.livejournal.com]

Yeah, for government purposes multiple votes are no good.

Now here's the tricky question. Rob's and my friends often vote on what we want to do - what movie to watch and so on. They know all about me, and we're friends, so there's no funny stuff going on. So why shouldn't we get two votes then?

Johnny

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

in a situation like that, I'd say two votes would be fair.

we tend to only voice opposing viewpoints or suggestions, in those cases, as seperate...like:

group of friends: let's go see Saw III!

pack collective: (inner voice) two want to see it, 8 don't. (outer voice) nah, I don't think so...how about another one?

or:

if the affirmative outweigh the negative, we don't have to voice the negative opinions out loud, because they've already been outweighed.

works for us *shrug*

i'm durnk, ignore me.

[ricktboy.livejournal.com]

we don't tend to vote politically at all anymore.

we discuss it idly though. and have decided we'd take a 'majority rules' standpoint if we opted to vote.

we're voting in '08, for hil. *shrug*

[tej-agni.livejournal.com]

For our group if the body died, everyone who had access to it doesn't die with the body. They'd still be living in our realm. Some might not even know the body had died unless they tried to reach the access point to this earth realm and realized they couldn't get here that way anymore.

Jenilee T.

[ridetothesea.livejournal.com]

For us majority rules. So far the majority is pretty liberal.

As for whether or not there are fights...we have one person who has a quasi-Socialist leaning and a couple of people who are Libertarians. There have been plenty of arguments.

[phen0type.livejournal.com]

This would not be practicable; it would be far too open to abuse. I do support allowing legal identity to be changed more easily for those who do not identify with certain things, but it is not the same as giving individual groups the vote.