I also don't like the random chance thing because it requires to people to trust that the result is actually random and not the result of repeated rolls or exploiting flaws in the generator or something like that.
I think it's simply more honest to give a specific the person the final deciding vote in the event of multiple ties.
But multiple ties are unlikely anyway, so runoffs should be the default way to resolve things.
And maybe we should encourage candidates to consider withdrawing - if you didn't get an outright win and believe that the other candidate is (also) a good choice, then a voluntary withdrawal would in my opinion be another good way to resolve things.

Reply

I like the idea that in the event of a gameside round 2 tie the winner would be the leader from round 1.  It's the most straightforward.

In the extremely unlikely event that both rounds were tied the result could then be determined by a TSP Discord singing competition.  (or just let the EC vote in that case.)

---

Legislator | Local Councilor | Aspiring TSP Curmudgeon
Messages archived by the Ministry Of the Regal Executive - Bureaucratic Services

---

Reply

I don’t get why we’re even considering doing away with the coin flip? All other choices are giving certain people more than one vote. That’s not reflective of the entire region’s support.

There’s no trust issue involved with a coin flip. Things like random.org exist, and if you can’t trust the EC to give us the randomly picked choice, there’s no reason to trust any other aspect of the election in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally just don't like the chance aspect here. And, I'd be far more supportive of giving someone an extra vote rather than it being random.

There’s just no fairness to that. If you want to give me an extra vote, go ahead, but that means any tiebreaker is going to be biased towards people I like who support a defender agenda.

There’s nothing bad about a coin flip. A tie means both candidate have equal support— the same portion of voters will be both satisfied and dissatisfied with either outcome. That’s why it’s settled through a coin flip: there’s no other fair way to assess who should win the office. All other ways introduce bias and violate one person/one vote.

Reply

I don’t get why we’re even considering doing away with the coin flip? All other choices are giving certain people more than one vote. That’s not reflective of the entire region’s support.

There’s no trust issue involved with a coin flip. Things like random.org exist, and if you can’t trust the EC to give us the randomly picked choice, there’s no reason to trust any other aspect of the election in the first place.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I personally just don't like the chance aspect here. And, I'd be far more supportive of giving someone an extra vote rather than it being random. 

There’s just no fairness to that. If you want to give me an extra vote, go ahead, but that means any tiebreaker is going to be biased towards people I like who support a defender agenda.

There’s nothing bad about a coin flip. A tie means both candidate have equal support— the same portion of voters will be both satisfied and dissatisfied with either outcome. That’s why it’s settled through a coin flip: there’s no other fair way to assess who should win the office. All other ways introduce bias and violate one person/one vote. 

I mean, I totally acknowledge that there's bias. But, if it's an elected official who is given that power, it would be implied by them being elected the region trusts them in this aspect.

Honestly, it doesn't really matter to me. This is so unlikely to happen that ... ya know.

-tsunamy
[forum admin]

Reply