Elections

Prythe

Quite often there are vote splits - and in Cities it is required there be at least two contestors for an election to even begin.

My thought it simple  and stems from watching California, US politics --->

Initial election is a "Primary." 

If one candidate receives a majority of the votes (50% plus 1) then they are elected.

If not, the top two vote getters are in a "run off" and then the one with the most votes is elected.

This ensures that whoever gains the office is wanted by more people than not (or more people than who want the other candidate) and there won't be a situation such as:

36%  Candidate A - Jerk everybody is tired of
33% Candidate B - Sweet person, loved by all
31% Candidate C - Effective person, would be great at the job

64% of the voters wanted Candidate A out - almost two thirds of the voters! -  but Candidate A gets to stay in.

With a requirement of needing more than half the votes to win the above results would result in a "run off" between Candidate A and B, with a final result looking something like this:

41% Candidate A
59% Candidate B

Sweetie wins, the jerk is gone. Everybody rejoices!

Rangor

Doesn't sound like a bad idea.

Orzaansyn

The only issue is that I more see Achaean elections like:

49%  Candidate A - Jerk loved by goup A, everybody of group B is tired of

49% Candidate B - Jerk loved by goup B, everybody of group A is tired of

2% Candidate C - Effective person, would be great at the job

Santar

Terrible idea. You have no idea who someone's 'second choice' in an election would be. 

The people voting for person C could very well be prioritizing person A as their vote if it were just an election between A and B. 

However, I don't like to shoot down an idea without giving a better one, so here you go:

What should happen with Achaea elections, is there should be something akin to the "election primaries" in order to weed the field down to two candidates. You identify who the two most popular candidates are, and then in order to have a fair election, you hold another election with just those two to see who wins.

It's a simple concept that would fix the problem. Just have half the election period be voting between ALL candidates, then the final two get sent to a showdown. This is the most fair and logical way to do things in order to determine the true winner. This is also the way things happen for most of the free world IRL too.

Jules

What you actually want is approval voting. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Approval_voting

Rangor

I almost started debating irl politics. Sorry. I will post no more.

Eld

Also potentially relevant: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow's_impossibility_theorem

Prythe

Santar, a primary system was exactly what I was trying to describe. Thank you. 

Ellodin

not really how primaries work since there's no distinct parties from which candidates are selected, which is a major point of the concept.  even in the USA, which is very much a two-party system in practice, general elections have more than two candidates on the ballots.

idea is from an old Eleusis news post by Challowyne nearly verbatim.  disregarding that, amusing to frame things as "jerk" vs. "sweet person" that "everyone" either is tired of or loves, yet the former still wins.

Jarrod

Would be interesting if there was a vote where everyone could cast two votes, but not for the same individual. Optional to cast one or both.

You'd have some people obviously still only casting one to support their friends, but it's more likely that the less close friends of the person, or who just think the person is popular, will vote for a different individual. If there really was an election like:

49% A - A's group, hates B
49% B - B's group, hates A
2% C - Good candidate, blah blah

It's actually somewhat likely C wins if there's a two-vote per voter style in place.

Jules

^This is exactly how approval voting would work with three candidates, and seriously, it's a great system.  If you really get into it you can argue about some pros and cons vs. other systems (some of which depend on your point of view), but it's simple and fixes the split vote problem. 

Caladbolg

Not sure if this is changed since I don't even remember the last time i've voted on something but.

Should make it so that only one account type thingy can vote per election.

I've heard some stories about people hopping to alts like crazy and voting it up. to give them or someone else an advantage. and while sure if Draqoom ran for Dawnlord Caladbolg gonna vote for Draqoom. while Caladbolg alt in same city Might vote for the other person because of how that persons views change from caladbolgs.. No people just gonna abuse the crap out of it. While im sure abusing this would result in becoming a tree (or ip banned or something) Seemingly.. Might be impossible to actually catch people in the act of if they just be sneaky about it. (And not create 500 alts all at once to do it)

Tharvis

isn't there an activity requirement to be able to vote?

Aodfionn

That still leaves it open to getting Ashadra'd, saladbowl. Should add activity requirement, if one doesn't exist.

Melodie

Aodfionn said:

That still leaves it open to getting Ashadra'd, saladbowl. Should add activity requirement, if one doesn't exist.

I lol'd pretty bad at this. #sorrynotsorry

To actually contribute, Saladbowl, that's actually illegal if I recall right. The whole alts thing voting a person, I mean.

Tharvis

Melodie said:

Aodfionn said:

That still leaves it open to getting Ashadra'd, saladbowl. Should add activity requirement, if one doesn't exist.

I lol'd pretty bad at this. #sorrynotsorry

To actually contribute, Saladbowl, that's actually illegal if I recall right. The whole alts thing voting a person, I mean.

problem is bringing it to admin attention with some minor proof (well, technically you can report anything with reasonable suspicion) but that'd end up in sore losers reporting every time they lose

Aodfionn

I don't think it should get to the point of needing proof - a simple thing that says you can't vote unless you logged in X times or were active within X time of the election being opened. 

The far better alternative to that, though, is to abandon the fragile and easily rigged election system and come join in the Theocracy. Make you Targ Team Offical.

Melodie

Good news is, I'm pretty sure most elections are pretty closely watched by patrons, nowadays, to watch for that kind of funny business. Especially since they're actually not nearly as common as they used to be.

Lorielan

Elections are already setup to deal with this sort of thing. Also, votes cast by players who are not above the minimum activity threshold simply do not count towards the end result.

Prythe

Aodfionn said:

That still leaves it open to getting Ashadra'd, saladbowl. Should add activity requirement, if one doesn't exist.

The active rule did not exist "back in the day" for what it is worth. 

In Los Angeles many of the city offices pretend to be non-partisan, so the primaries are not about selecting a candidate to represent a political party but to either elect a winner (50 percent plus 1) or winnow the field to the top two candidates for a "run off."

A recent election had two long time Democrat Congress critters pitted in the same race (as part of a larger field) due to redistricting.   Neither garnered the fifty us one so the run off was between just the two of them. 

(See Sherman vs Berman.)

Taraza

Go the Mhaldor way, have appointed leaders, instead of this voting nonsense. 

Aktillum

I'd be supportive of elections getting a bit of a makeover.

I do want to say though that I'm extraordinarily disappointed that not one single org in Achaea use duels to the death as a basis for leadership selection. Not one. 

Saibel

Taraza said:

Go the Mhaldor way, have appointed leaders, instead of this voting nonsense. 

Alas but I would love if we entertained proper elections, where only those of CR3 and above may cast a vote. Fun fun.

Prythe

Now that I am home and can actually think and type at the same time ---

1. I don't know what "saladbowl" is. Help?

2. The reference to Ashadra really left a bad taste in my mouth. I was not active enough at the time "stuff happened" to have first hand knowledge of any of the events, but the aftermath lingered well into my re-emergence into more active, and apparently still does to this day - how many real life years later?

Behind the character Ashadra is a real person with real feelings - a person who has _left_ the game for good, after two attempts to return and re-engage, because of people not being able to let go of old stuff and allow her to relax and enjoy her time in the game. 

That sucks.

Pushed out of a game. Think about it. A game. Game. Not work. Not life. Not school. Game.

It sucks for her. It sucks for the person behind Logistics (who I have no doubt made more money for IRE than he ever cost them by his helpful nature and nurturing of newcomers). It sucks for so many people who have come and gone.  

Some people blow through a character and then "Okay, I'll just roll a new one." Some people change class and loyalty at will (sometimes with RP to go along with it, sometimes just doing it....

Others (and yes, this includes me) are vested in their characters and the RP of their characters, and can't just shed a skin as if it was meaningless to them.

Yes, I know two people who successfully created new versions of themselves and have been very successful. But they hadn't poured years into their first characters, each was far less than a year - their new decade old characters _are_ them.

The fact that X years later somebody has to use Ashadra as a "bad example" borders on mean, and it really left a sour taste in my mouth while I was sitting on the button with pocket Aces (but, I digress....).  

ICly, who holds grudges decades, even hundreds, of years later? Memories fade, facts become fuzzy....

OOCly, who is so "mean girl" that they have to mess with somebody else, somebody else's game enjoyments a real life year, years, or up to a decade later?

Really?

Deborah