Poll: Do you support?

**Belschaft** · 01-29-2015, 11:38 PM

(01-29-2015, 10:06 PM)Unibot Wrote:
Quote:I think it is preferable to have a candidate elected who is a first choice for 60% of people but hated by 40% than a winner who is everyone's second or third choice.

This candidate would win under Condorcet too. >_>

I used a bad example, I know, but the general issue of Condorcet favoring centrist/moderate "compromise" candidates who no one objects to is a concern. In an election with multiple candidates someone who no one has strong opinions on is more likely to win than someone who attracts both strong support and strong opposition.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

Lord Ravenclaw · 01-30-2015, 08:04 AM

I don't see anything which explicitly mentions the eligibility for people to run for office. Could be reading it wrong. Colour me surprised. I was expecting another attempt to disenfranchise cosmopolitan citizens.

[Image: R3G1C7X.gif] [Image: aPo7ydn.png?1] [Image: R3G1C7X.gif]

***sandaoguo*** · 01-30-2015, 08:53 AM

I'm guessing the idea would be that you must have citizenship on the forums or be qualified under WA Influential. I would prefer the former, so we can still do security checks. (I would prefer not doing this at all, in the first place though.)

***Tsunamy*** · 01-30-2015, 10:40 AM

(01-30-2015, 08:53 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I'm guessing the idea would be that you must have citizenship on the forums or be qualified under WA Influential. I would prefer the former, so we can still do security checks. (I would prefer not doing this at all, in the first place though.)

This seems cumbersome. So, we'd have to keep a list of all citizens and match the Influential WA nations, thereby excluding the others?

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

southern bellz · 01-30-2015, 11:27 AM

I'm fine with this, but I do not like the ranking by preference type of voting at all. I know Elu loves it, but for voting I think keeping it simple is better. I don't think any of our election results have been problematic or warrant major election reform.

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

~~Unibot~~ · 01-30-2015, 03:19 PM

(01-29-2015, 11:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(01-29-2015, 10:06 PM)Unibot Wrote:
Quote:I think it is preferable to have a candidate elected who is a first choice for 60% of people but hated by 40% than a winner who is everyone's second or third choice.

This candidate would win under Condorcet too. >_>

I used a bad example, I know, but the general issue of Condorcet favoring centrist/moderate "compromise" candidates who no one objects to is a concern. In an election with multiple candidates someone who no one has strong opinions on is more likely to win than someone who attracts both strong support and strong opposition.

I understand what you're saying - but it isn't true. To some extent, borda count does promote the effect that you're suggesting. It can often pop out near random results if voters essentially cancel their top choices out. A switch to range voting avoids this problem.

This isn't the case with Condorcet, however. Keep in mind that in most cases, Condorcet and IRV produce similar results. We're discussing the fuzzy areas where they do not. What you're describing as "moderacy" is actually a false dichotomy. In IRV, because of the focus on the first preference, voters have to think strategically and consider other voters still ... the voting system falsely structures the election so that failing to put the "right" candidate at the top of their preferences can hurt support for their preferred candidate. This is because IRV is non-monotonic. It's not some cool system where edgy candidates are favoured, IRV just encourages strategic voting on the part of voters, so candidates that they otherwise wouldn't have voted for, end up winning incidentally. IRV is the only voting system to fail the monotonicity criterion.

Especially when voters (like Southern Bellz) are concerned about complexity, I'd urge you to choose Condorcet which is a fairer method for voters, but without the complicated system of distributing and divvying up votes.

**Belschaft** · 01-30-2015, 04:30 PM

(01-30-2015, 10:40 AM)Tsunamy Wrote:
(01-30-2015, 08:53 AM)Sandaoguo Wrote: I'm guessing the idea would be that you must have citizenship on the forums or be qualified under WA Influential. I would prefer the former, so we can still do security checks. (I would prefer not doing this at all, in the first place though.)

This seems cumbersome. So, we'd have to keep a list of all citizens and match the Influential WA nations, thereby excluding the others?

No, the criteria for running for and holding office remains the same; Citizenship. Influential WA nations become members of the Assembly and electors for Delegate elections. As the ballots for both are conducted via in game poll, there is no need to maintain a list as eligibility it determined by the site.

I added the following language to the BoR; "and to Influential WA Nations when specifically designated." This provides the legal cover in terms of removing contradictions in the Charter limiting voting rights to Citizens, but only where Influential WA Nations are specifically granted voting rights.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 01-30-2015, 04:32 PM

(01-30-2015, 08:04 AM)Lord Ravenclaw Wrote: I don't see anything which explicitly mentions the eligibility for people to run for office. Could be reading it wrong. Colour me surprised. I was expecting another attempt to disenfranchise cosmopolitan citizens.

There is nothing of the sought present. This is a regionalist proposal in that it expands the franchise in favor of native WA nations, but does not disenfranchise "cosmopolitan" citizens, though their relative voting strength is decreased by adding the new category of voters.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

**Belschaft** · 01-30-2015, 05:04 PM

(01-30-2015, 03:19 PM)Unibot Wrote:
(01-29-2015, 11:38 PM)Belschaft Wrote:
(01-29-2015, 10:06 PM)Unibot Wrote:
Quote:I think it is preferable to have a candidate elected who is a first choice for 60% of people but hated by 40% than a winner who is everyone's second or third choice.

This candidate would win under Condorcet too. >_>

I used a bad example, I know, but the general issue of Condorcet favoring centrist/moderate "compromise" candidates who no one objects to is a concern. In an election with multiple candidates someone who no one has strong opinions on is more likely to win than someone who attracts both strong support and strong opposition.

I understand what you're saying - but it isn't true. To some extent, borda count does promote the effect that you're suggesting. It can often pop out near random results if voters essentially cancel their top choices out. A switch to range voting avoids this problem.

This isn't the case with Condorcet, however. Keep in mind that in most cases, Condorcet and IRV produce similar results. We're discussing the fuzzy areas where they do not. What you're describing as "moderacy" is actually a false dichotomy. In IRV, because of the focus on the first preference, voters have to think strategically and consider other voters still ... the voting system falsely structures the election so that failing to put the "right" candidate at the top of their preferences can hurt support for their preferred candidate. This is because IRV is non-monotonic. It's not some cool system where edgy candidates are favoured, IRV just encourages strategic voting on the part of voters, so candidates that they otherwise wouldn't have voted for, end up winning incidentally. IRV is the only voting system to fail the monotonicity criterion.

Especially when voters (like Southern Bellz) are concerned about complexity, I'd urge you to choose Condorcet which is a fairer method for voters, but without the complicated system of distributing and divvying up votes.

Imagine the following hypothetical scenario;

Adam, Brian and Craig are running for Minister of the Army. Adam and Brian are controversial candidates - Adam is a raider, Brian is a defender. They both have strong base's of support, but their supporters hate each other. Craig doesn't have a strong position on the issue, but is a very popular figure in the region; everyone likes Craig. The people voting for Craig would split evenly between Adam and Brian if Craig wasn't running.

Adam: 46%
Brian: 44%
Craig: 10%

By FPTP, Adam wins.

Adam: 46% + 5% = 51%
Brian: 44% + 5% = 49%
Craig: 10%

By IRV, Adam wins.

Adam vs. Brian: 51% vs. 49%
Adam vs. Craig: 46% vs. 54%
Brian vs. Craig: 44% vs. 56%

By Condorcet, Craig wins.

Under Condorcet you can win by simply not being hated.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 01-30-2015, 05:05 PM by Gordon Freeman.)

southern bellz · 01-30-2015, 05:27 PM

A very sexist example [emoji14]

The 16th Delegate of The South Pacific

Poll: Do you support? You do not have permission to vote in this poll.
WA Delegate Elections	17.65%	3	17.65%
A Unicameral Assembly	5.88%	1	5.88%
Both	11.76%	2	11.76%
Neither	64.71%	11	64.71%
Total		17 vote(s)	100%