| [PASSED] Resolving ties in elections |
|
I should have made it clear: in the language of the Elections Act where it says that in the case of a dispute the Elections Commission would arbitrate, compared to the precedent I assumed this meant that the Elections Commission would arbitrate a method to choose, rather than choosing themselves. I'd edit the draft to reflect this, but as people seem to be leaning away from having the Elections Committee choose a method each time there is a tie, I won't yet.
(11-07-2017, 06:14 PM)Drall Wrote: Using Nakari's method 2, on the other hand, allows for a full vote between the two tied candidates, which really should only take 3 days - hardly a significant delay. For such a minor loss, the method is far superior to either of the other two, as it stays away from arbitrary decisions and pure chance and is instead based purely off of the opinion of the people. I like this method too, but there are situations it might not work - if the tied vote was just between those two candidates in the first place, what guarantees the next one won't be another tie? The current methods suggested are: - another vote solely for the tied candidates - counting the second-place votes in the first round - flip a coin - have the EC decide which of these is most appropriate I think a poll on this would be interesting, though probably better to wait and see if any more methods will be suggested.
I like the second method better as well. However, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that currently campaigning during the elections period is not allowed under the Elections Act. If we changed this, then the second vote, even with only two candidates, would very possibly be different. We could also add another campaign period before the second vote, but that would take more time, so I'm not sure if we're all on board with that.
At this stage, if this still results in a tie, I think arbitration is better since who knows how long it will take for one candidate to gain an advantage. I think the public coin flip on Discord would be the least controversial.
Holding another runoff won’t result in a different set of voter preferences, unless the whole point is to pressure and coerce people into switching their votes so that the tie is broken. Which would mean it’s not a genuine reflection of who people want to vote for. IRV is literally the same thing as run-off voting, you just do it all at once. Forcing another election is basically going, “Alright, now this time make the RIGHT choice. Wink, nudge.”
It’s incredibly rare for there to be a tie in the last round of voting. I don’t think we’ve *ever* had one. The closest we’ve come is a tie for *second place* in the January 2017 Delegate election. The way we broke that tie can’t be used for breaking a final round tie. The last two candidates are almost guaranteed to have been the ones listed first and second the most on all the ballots. And we can’t just go back and count who got more first place choices— there wouldn’t be a tie if somebody had gotten a majority of them in the first place. Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Been searching for ideas, how about this:
If there's a tie, the winner is whoever had the most votes in the previous round. (Not first preferences, just votes.) So if round 3 was 12 Glen/12 Bel, and round 2 had 10 Glen/9 Bel, Glen wins. Repeat further back if necessary. I doubt the tie will extend through every round.
That seems as reasonable idea as any, though I would argue that the point of having an EC is so we don't need to legislate for every set of circumstances. If I remember rightly the time when we had a tie we actually tried using that "who had the most votes last round" method.... and it didn't work, as the buggers had the same number of votes at *every* stage....
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) (11-08-2017, 11:39 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: Holding another runoff won’t result in a different set of voter preferences, unless the whole point is to pressure and coerce people into switching their votes so that the tie is broken. Point conceded. In my opinion, we should do everything reasonable to break ties before resorting to arbitration, but if we still can't then at that point arbitration would be the best optional.
@Farengeto: Could you explain what you mean by “votes” instead of first preferences? If you mean to count every time their name appears on all the ballots, wouldn’t there be a problem with how people usually list all preferences in their ballot?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk (11-09-2017, 07:50 AM)sandaoguo Wrote: @Farengeto: Could you explain what you mean by “votes” instead of first preferences? If you mean to count every time their name appears on all the ballots, wouldn’t there be a problem with how people usually list all preferences in their ballot? It was perhaps phrased badly to due to uncertainty how the term first preferences was being used. I just meant it in the normal sense of how many ballots had them ranked the highest of remaining candidates in that round.
Who they rank highest is their first preference
 It’s not my favorite tie-breaking method, and like I mention above, it could lead to just another tie in our elections. But I doubt anybody but myself will vote for randomly picking a winner. So there aren’t a whole lot of great options left. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I mean, nobody likes coin flips instead of some form of preferences...
Signed,
![[Image: tspsig.png]](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/323623854591180801/329130815340412930/tspsig.png) Positions:
Legislator of The South Pacific King of Machina, Defence Realm of Illuminati Alliance Citizen of The East Pacific Former Positions:
Overlord of Masterz
Seargant of HYDRA Talon of Firehehlm Munifiex of The Roman Empire ![[Image: rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9E...66-h654-rw]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/rv43j5bZ3p1Rs0A01odvThXy-TLzgwlhUTl_mY9EGkiEks-YKf31JOYzp7pyzeivAZlE_6KpcL0UZes=w1366-h654-rw) |
![[Image: flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg]](https://raw.githubusercontent.com/esfalsagov/esfalsa-graphics/main/flag%20of%20esfalsa%20animated.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: rank_officer.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/rank_officer.min.svg){kind=icon}
![[Image: updates_lifetime_2.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/updates_lifetime_2.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/150w/defenses_lifetime_4.min.svg){kind=small}
![[Image: detags_lifetime_3.min.svg]](https://raw.github.com/TheSouthPacific/tsp-graphics/master/mod/spsf/min/detags_lifetime_3.min.svg){kind=small}
![[+]](/images/collapse_collapsed.png "[+]")
PREVIOUS ROLES 
| Users browsing this thread: |
| 1 Guest(s) |