Welcome to the Achaea Forums! Please be sure to read the Forum Rules.

Elections

VayneVayne Rhode IslandMember Posts: 1,897 @@ - Legendary Achaean
edited October 2013 in The Golden Dais of Creation
Hashan has a lot of elections and the most recent one, or the aborted start to one has me pondering a few things that I think should be taken a look at.

1. After a contest has been voiced, I wish there was a countdown showing how much time before the polls open/the contest defaults because of no third party joining, similar to the "(x days remaining)" that pops up once the election officially begins.

2. Why does a third party have to contest to get the election going? Is there some reasoning that I am unaware of for this? We just had an election fall through because no one else wanted to run. This seems silly to me. It makes sense if a leader has left the city or stepped down, but not for replacing someone. I assume the system does not differentiate the two and necessitates two contestants to ensure at least two participants. If so, I find that unnecessary if there is legitimately only one person willing to step up; they should get the spot.

3. Why are people able to enter the election after polls have opened? I feel like once the polls open no one else should be able to jump in half way through the elections. This could cause some unfair situations like someone swooping in when an opponent missteps and takes advantage even though they were not confident enough to through their hat in initially...etc.

So just a few thoughts. The election system is important to Hashan and unfortunately hardcoded so that we have little control over how it actually works, so I thought I might lobby for some reform at least!
image
Tagged:
RispokTeghaine

Comments

  • ShirszaeShirszae Santo DomingoMember Posts: 3,082 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    Vayne said:
    This could cause some unfair situations like someone swooping in when an opponent missteps and takes advantage thought they were not confident enough to through their hat in initially...etc.

    There's no fair in politics.  :P

    And you won't understand the cause of your grief...


    ...But you'll always follow the voices beneath.

    NimBlujixapugSherazad
  • KresslackKresslack Florida, United StatesMember Posts: 5,890 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    I would say the reason it takes three people is that so two people who are buddy-buddy can't start an election together and one just drop out to secure the uncontested win for the other. Sort of seems like what you're inquiring about, what with taking only two people to start the election and then stopping anyone else from joining once it started.


  • SilasSilas Member Posts: 2,542 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    No pls. Requiring two people to contest is to make sure you don't have an election every time you login. In Shallam, we actually banned people from contesting just to get the election underway because of how stupid and disruptive the politics were getting.

    Tart's right about misstepping leaving you open to a late bum rush being the nature of politics.

  • VayneVayne Rhode IslandMember Posts: 1,897 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    @Taraus What do you feel those reasons are? I solicited this thread just to find that out. It is true that late entry has advantages as well as disadvantages. However, I think the pros far outweigh the cons. Right now, you can step in after the fact if you see the candidates are lacking and make a move against them after you are able to weigh their odds(which I think again is unfair, if you want to play you need to come in before the game starts). On the other hand, entering late gives you less time to campaign and chances are you will not have the momentum the other candidates have already built up. You are mistaken on one important point though, you can indeed change your vote at any time. So if I enter 5 minutes before the election was over, every could change their vote to me if they so chose.

    The joining after the fact thing is a bigger concern to me than the number needed, and I see why it could get annoying to have such a low threshold for initiating an election. Brutally tearing your opponent apart because they slip up or are not adequately prepared is great and absolutely a part of politics but within the same playing field once the votes start being cast is better in my opinion.
    image
    ShirszaeSilasHeguaSherazad
  • SylvanceSylvance Member Posts: 1,477 ✭✭✭✭✭ - Grand Achaean
    Taraus said:
    Vayne said:
    Hashan has a lot of elections and the most recent one, or the aborted start to one has me pondering a few things that I think should be taken a look at.

    3. Why are people able to enter the election after polls have opened? I feel like once the polls open no one else should be able to jump in half way through the elections. This could cause some unfair situations like someone swooping in when an opponent missteps and takes advantage even though they were not confident enough to through their hat in initially...etc.


    Oh gosh no, getting rid of the ability to throw your own hat into an election after the ball is rolling is a horrible idea, for a lot of reasons.

    Also, a candidate misstepping and an opponent swooping in to take advantage is like... one of the core tactics of politicians. Trying to eliminate that mechanically would stifle so much! If anything, latecomers to the the polls have a built-in disadvantage ~ they've automatically lost the vote of anyone else who's voted prior to their entry.


    Really? I thought you could change your vote at any time? Or has that been changed?
    Tvistor: If that was a troll, it was masterful.
    I take my hat off to you.
    Achimrst
  • EldEld Member Posts: 3,946 @@ - Legendary Achaean
    @Sylvance, yes you can, as Vayne pointed out in his reply.
    SylvanceAchimrst
  • TeghaineTeghaine Cape Town - South Africa - Africa (thatcontinentthatlookslikesouthamerica)Member Posts: 116 ✭✭✭ - Distinguished
    Jonners said:

    Still though, People who have all ready voted are less likely to change their vote. I have no math or studies on that, but it seems common sense to me.

    It makes sense if the person citing really believes in whom they vote for. If it's more of a case of: "Ah, I don't care much for either of these choices, I'll just vote for the one I disagree with less." Then one candidate says something in jest which is taken badly, and a new contester jumps in to capitalise, then the voter would probably change their vote. At least, that's how I see it being.
    And honestly, how many people have been voted in because they had slightly better policies than their opponent, and not because they are actually the best person for the position?
Sign In to Comment.