Users browsing this thread:

**Belschaft** · 07-25-2018, 08:15 PM

I'm not actually surprised at all with those results; I've said all along that when you chose an electoral system you preference a certain kind of candidate.

It was always my intention to preference candidates with strong first-preference support from distinct electoral bases, so as to provide a distinct and meaningful choice in the in-game stafe.

I feel I've been very clear on this.

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

PREVIOUS ROLES

(This post was last modified: 07-25-2018, 08:15 PM by Belschaft.)

Tim · 07-25-2018, 08:32 PM

I'd be pretty much fine with most things that aren't an approval-based system. Whether that's the current system, IRV, or Condorcet, I don't have overly much preference.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"

Escade · 07-26-2018, 05:15 PM

I'd like consistency, that's all.

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*** · 07-26-2018, 05:57 PM

When we first transitioned to a proportional voting system, the Chair of the Assembly held a regional values survey of sorts, that showed the community's preference in either a consensus candidate or a majoritarian candidate. Why don't we do that? Describe what the differences between those two archetypes are, and we can poll which archetype we prefer.

(And yes, I get the irony in a majoritarian poll to determine if we want a consensus-candidate electoral system...)

Right now, our voting methods are based on the types of ideal candidates we want to ultimately win:

Chair elections are approval voting, because approval encourages the least controversial, most broadly acceptable winner. This suits an apolitical administrative role, where highly political people have had a lot of trouble operating successfully in the positions.

Cabinet elections are IRV, which encourages winners with strong support, even if roughly half of the community really doesn't like them. We haven't debated it, but there's a general idea that we want candidates that offer significantly different choices to voters. The Cabinet is our only truly political elected office.

Delegate elections are multi-winner IRV (first/primary stage) and then majoritarian (by necessity), which encourages the same type of candidate as in Cabinet elections. Belschaft has been a proponent of this idea, explaining that it's preferable to have two very different candidates move on the second vote. Tsunamy and Roavin (maybe?) are proposing that it's a better idea to have more consensus-based candidates, because that's more stable and safe in the long run, and the role of the Delegate is supposed to be apolitical (like the Chair).

While different methods are used, this isn't really "inconsistency." There's a very specific reason why Chair elections use approval voting-- we wanted a method that produced the most broadly acceptable winner. It's the most straightforward way to reach that outcome.

(This post was last modified: 07-26-2018, 06:08 PM by sandaoguo.)

***Roavin*** · 07-26-2018, 06:03 PM

That seems like a good option, actually. I can run the past N Delegate elections through my script to show sample output for all of them, etc.

***sandaoguo*** · 07-26-2018, 06:10 PM

(07-26-2018, 06:03 PM)Roavin Wrote: That seems like a good option, actually. I can run the past N Delegate elections through my script to show sample output for all of them, etc.

I mean actually ask people what type of candidate they prefer. You can't really glean that from analyzing past elections, because the voting methods we do taint people's ideals.

***Roavin*** · 07-26-2018, 08:19 PM

Well, yes, just providing that data to help decide.

Though good point that the data is somewhat tainted due to tactical voting in accordance with the method used.That could be a disclaimer then, I guess.

***Roavin*** · 08-02-2018, 10:02 PM

Haven't forgotten about this. Will do this soon-ish.

***Tsunamy*** · 08-11-2018, 08:40 PM

I'd like to bump this and official propose this addition to the Election Act.

Quote:(2) On the first of every January and July, the Assembly will convene for the first round of Delegate elections.
a. Any eligible legislator wishing to run for Delegate may declare their candidacy, and the Assembly will debate the merits of their platform. Any player who has been banned from World Assembly membership will be considered ineligible and any candidate who is later discovered to be banned from World Assembly membership will be immediately disqualified.
b. The campaign and debate period will last one week, after which the Assembly will vote for 3 days.
c. This round of voting for delegate will be conducted using Approval Voting.
c. d. The two candidates ranked first and second under IRV with the highest number of approvals will move to a second round of voting conducted via a a poll of Native World Assembly members.
e. Should the voting result in a tie, more than two nations can move onto the second round of voting.

(3) After receiving the top two candidates in the forum election, the sitting Delegate election commissioner will create a week-long regional poll accessible to Native World Assembly members, instructing them to vote for their preferred candidate.
a. A Dispatch containing the campaigns of both all candidates will be created to aid voters in their choice.
b. The candidate who wins a majority of the votes will be declared the Delegate-elect.
c. If no candidate wins a majority of votes, the top two candidates with be placed in a runoff election, mimicking the previous round of voting.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Tim · 08-11-2018, 11:29 PM

Completely opposed.

Approval voting has shown itself to be an unpopular mess of a system. It's the last thing we should be going for, and I'd really like to stress that even our curent system is better than going with this.

[Image: Lj1SunN.png]
Formerly Banned For Still Unspecified "OOC Toxicity"