| A non-ridiculous voting methodology for Delegate |
Frankly, there's no such thing as "running IRV until we have two people left." IRV is a voting system for single-winner elections. The forum Delegate election is a ranked ballot with two winners. That's called ranked choice voting. This is how it works: http://www.fairvote.org/multi_winner_rcv_example
When I vote for our Delegate selections on the forum, I'm voting for two people to send to the gameside. Not just one person. If not, then there was no point in moving to preferential voting in the first place. But as it stands, if my first preferred choice wins the first round, the rest of my ballot is thrown out. That's not acceptable. I write my ballot with two spots in mind, not just one! I propose we amend the Elections Act to use STV, which is an actual multiple-winner system: Quote:c. The two candidates ranked first and second under IRV elected under a single transferable vote ballot will move to a second round of voting conducted via a poll of Native World Assembly members. There are many online ballot counters for STV. I like this one, personally: http://paul-lockett.co.uk/stv.html
Full support. I love STV.
Deputy Regional Minister of the Planning and Development Agency(March 8-May 19, 2014)
Local Council Member(April 24-August 11) Court Justice of TSP(August 15-December 7)
I have watched a basic video of how STV works, and I am all completely for it. Count me as a supporter of this amendment.
![[Image: W9Gx775.png?2]](https://i.imgur.com/W9Gx775.png?2) Wintreath Thane of Diplomatic Officers Fmr. Local Councillor (9/9/15 - c. 10/15) Discord:Katie#3933
All for it
The problem with this argument is that the Delegate election is not a multi-winner election - at the end of the process, there will be exactly one Delegate. It is a multi-stage election, where two separate groups of voters are balloted; legislators to reduce the number of candidates to two, and the regional WA members to decide the final winner.
The decision to use a modified version of IRV was intentional, with the objective of preventing what Glen wants to occur; those people who voted for the first ranked candidate also being involved in deciding who the second ranked candidate is. My thought process, and it's a simple one, is that if we are conducting a primary election to decide which two candidates are in the general election then the same group of voters shouldn't get to choose both candidates. It seems, to my own view, a fundamentally obvious proposition that everyone should get the same number of votes. The fact that one of my preferred candidates, Tsu, is ranked first should not allow myself and everyone else who supports Tsu to now vote for another of our preferred candidates. Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator ![[Image: B9ytUsy.png]](https://i.imgur.com/B9ytUsy.png)
Two people are chosen at the forum election. That's multi-winner. Moving to a multi-winner election system is a no-brainer.
If we want a system where the top two are the least similar candidates, then we can go back to a simple plurality.
Or we can use a system that doesn't discourage more than two-candidates (like plurality does) whilst at the same time recognising that people should only get to vote once.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
I think we should go with the STV, even if people's votes can be counted more than once.
Personally, I'd suggest we let each person have two votes toward the final ballot, if we're not doing FPTP.
-tsunamy
[forum admin]
Having spent the last hour doing maths based on the current public vote, the version of STV Glen has proposed produces a similar result to my IRV system; Zak and Tsu are selected as the candidates for the general election, rather than Tsu and Zak.
Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making
Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator
Why are we dealing with this right now IN an election. We have had 6 months since the last delegate election to work the system out, and we will have 6 more till the next one.
-Griffindor/Ebonhand
-Current Roles/Positions -Legislator 2/24/20- -High Court Justice 6/7/20- -South Pacific Coral Guard 11/17/20- -Minister of Engagement 6/17/22- -Past Roles/Positions -Legislator 7/3/16-4/10/18 -Secretary of State 4/3/20-2/24/21 -Chair of the APC 9/24/16-5/31/17 -Vice-Chair of the APC 6/1/17-4/10/18 -Local Council Member 7/1/17-11/17/17 -Citizen 5/2012-12/2014 and 2/26/16-7/3/2016 |
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
Quotes
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |