Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 07-12-2017, 05:52 PM

STV is designed for multiple winners, not one winner and a "first runner up". There is only one Delegacy to be filled, and thus using STV would be inappropriate.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

Escade · 07-12-2017, 07:04 PM

This might be obvious to other people but can the current system be gamed in any way? That is like if you put your first preference as first and second as third or something like that?

Escade

~ Positions Held in TSP ~
Delegate | Vice Delegate
Minister of Regional Affairs, | Minister of Foreign Affairs | Minister of Military Affairs
~ The Sparkly One ~

My Pinterest

***sandaoguo*** · 07-13-2017, 06:42 AM

(07-12-2017, 05:52 PM)Belschaft Wrote: STV is designed for multiple winners, not one winner and a "first runner up". There is only one Delegacy to be filled, and thus using STV would be inappropriate.

There are two spots to be filled. What happens after is irrelevant. You're purposefully denying that for some strange reason. STV is simply a method of counting votes when 2 or more outcomes are desired, whether you're choosing which two desserts to serve or which two people to elect. That the ultimate goal is to elect a single Delegate in a future vote is totally irrelevant.

We shouldn't be forced to use a jacked up version of IRV that's purposefully designed to stiff the second-most popular candidate, because you want to be a pedant about the two-step election. Purposefully undercutting the preference of the vote isn't democratic in the first place. The system you've invented is intended to skip over the candidate most people want in the second spot, in order to choose a less popular person.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017, 06:44 AM by sandaoguo.)

Sam111 · 07-13-2017, 06:47 AM

I'd prefer to see something a bit less bastardised than the current system, like FPTP or approval voting.

Hello

Spaceman · 07-13-2017, 07:44 AM

Either way, I'd like to examine a different system first through a couple or few relevant elections (past, present, or future elections) where it would be appropiate before officially changing from one system to another. Understanding how it would affect or change the outcome of our elections regardless of whether for better, worse, or indifferent I find important. I guess what I am trying to say is to see the different system unofficially applied alongside our current before changing it.

_____Hello!
"Space is to place as eternity is to time." ~ Joseph Joubert
Representative from Transtemporal Shifts and colonies when in italics like this message.

***Kris Kringle*** · 07-13-2017, 12:06 PM

For the love of Max, [violet] and the Church of Reppy, let's not use FPTP. It's a terrible system that stifles fair elections.

Inviato dal mio iPhone utilizzando Tapatalk

Former Delegate of the South Pacific
Posts outside High Court venues should be taken as those of any other legislator.
I do not participate in the regional server, but I am happy to talk through instant messaging or on the forum.

Legal Resources:
THE MATT-DUCK Law Archive | Mavenu Diplomatic Archive | Rules of the High Court | Case Submission System | Online Rulings Consultation System

**Belschaft** · 07-13-2017, 12:12 PM

You're using a strange definition of "democratic" Glen, when all academics working in the field of electoral systems are aware that no electoral system can fulfil all possible criterion's.

It is not undemocratic to use a system that favours "strong" support over "soft" support.

It is not undemocratic to use a system that doesn't allow voters who have selected a winning candidate to take part in selecting the runner up.

It is not undemocratic to consider "the second-most popular candidate" to be the person coming second in IRV, not the person who would come second if the voters supporting the most popular candidate also got a say in the matter.

It is not undemocratic to not use your own preferred method. It's just a different method.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017, 12:33 PM by Belschaft.)

***Tsunamy*** · 07-13-2017, 01:01 PM

Instead of fighting, I'd simply like us to codify something of the CURRENT SYSTEM WE'RE USING, so people are in agreement in how to run it. Changing systems at this point — regardless of the political theory behind it — is going to confuse everyone ... again.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

**Belschaft** · 07-13-2017, 02:48 PM

@Tsunamy - this amended version of Roa's version does exactly that.

Article 2, Section 1 Wrote:(1) All elections held on the regional forums will be conducted via Instant Runoff Voting (IRV).
a. The form of IRV used must be Optional Preferential Voting (OPV); voters may vote for one or multiple candidates in descending order of preference.
b. Should no candidate have an absolute majority once all votes have been counted then the candidate with the least number of votes shall be eliminated from the election.
c. The votes of those voting for the eliminated candidate will be reallocated based upon the expressed preferences, or discounted if no further preferences are expressed.
d. This process will continue until either a candidate has an absolute majority (for single-stage elections), or until only as many candidates are left as there are possible finalists (for multi-stage elections).
e. In the event of a tie the Election Commissioner will break such by examining second preferences in earlier rounds of voting; should this not resolve the tie, third preferences shall be examined, and so forth; if the tie cannot be broken, a form of random number generation such as a coin toss will be used.

Article 3, Section 2 Wrote:(2) On the first of every January and July, the Assembly will convene for the first round of Delegate elections.
a. Any legislator wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform.
b. The campaign and debate period will last one week, after which the Assembly will vote for 3 days.
c. The top two candidates ranked first and second under IRV will move to a second round of voting conducted via a a poll of Native World Assembly members.

_{Minister of Media, Subversion and Sandwich Making}
^{Associate Justice of the High Court and Senior Moderator}

PREVIOUS ROLES

***sandaoguo*** · 07-13-2017, 02:57 PM

(07-13-2017, 12:12 PM)Belschaft Wrote: You're using a strange definition of "democratic" Glen, when all academics working in the field of electoral systems are aware that no electoral system can fulfil all possible criterion's.

In a 2 winner election, the criterion you've created is that the winner of the 2nd seat should be the candidate left that has less overall support. That's the dictionary definition of non-democratic.

Anyways, your own system as devised is wrong in theory and practice. Once Seraph won the first spot, it was Sam that had less overall support from the remaining voters (thus, he was the most "different" from Seraph), and yet DM won anyways by having the most overall support for winning the remaining seat. (Which is what you would expect from a normal preferential system!)

So if the method you've devised is mathematically wrong, completely confusing every time it's used, and intends (even if it doesn't succeed) to choose the 2nd winner by picking the candidate contrary to voter preferences... can anybody besides Bel tell me why the hell we should keep using it?

(This post was last modified: 07-13-2017, 02:58 PM by sandaoguo.)