Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

News: Let this region resound with the song of the Kitten Paw Happy-time, and be permeated with the smell of catnip and pine!

Author Topic: Electoral Methods  (Read 2725 times)

Offline Gulliver

  • Data Dog
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5284
  • Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
Electoral Methods
« on: December 09, 2014, 09:28:51 PM »
Some of you may have noticed that I recently posted an election calendar and that keeping with current convention, I allotted time for a runoff. However, going forward this would not be my preferred way of running elections, and I'm curious how other people feel, so I'm opening a consultation poll and discussion. If some kind of consensus emerges, I would like to introduce legislation codifying how we run elections.

To briefly summarize the poll options:

Plurality: Vote for one candidate, whoever gets the most votes wins. Because there's no requirement that the winner get a majority, it's entirely possible for someone to win with a majority voting against them, and if the opposition splits the vote that winner might even be the least preferred candidate of a majority of voters, so I really don't like this option.

Runoff: What we're doing now: vote for one candidate, if no one gets a majority have a runoff between the top two. This ensures that the winner has to obtain some kind of majority and won't ever be the least preferred of a majority of voters, but because it goes round by round a candidate who might be the ideal majority consensus candidate (that is, the candidate who is preferred by a majority of voters to every alternative) can get eliminated in the first round before they can get votes in the second. Also, it requires two separate votes.

Approval: Vote for any number of candidates (i.e. the ones you "approve" of) and whoever has the most votes wins. Like plurality, it only takes one vote but avoids the issue of vote splitting because you can approve your favorite candidate as well as compromise candidate in case your first pick can't win. However, it is possible for a candidate who is the first choice of a majority of voters to lose is another candidate is deemed at least acceptable by a larger majority of voters, unless the first group of voters tactically only vote for their first choice. We used this method briefly for delegate elections before.

Instant runoff: Rank the candidates in order of preference. If someone has a majority of first choices, they win, else eliminate the candidate with the least votes and transfer their ballots to the next person on them. Check if someone has a majority and repeat. Essentially like runoff, only with eliminating one person at a time and with only one vote. Like a runoff it ensures that the winner has to get some kind of majority. However, like runoff, while it's less likely because only one person is eliminated each round, the ideal majority consensus candidate may still be eliminated before they have a chance to accrue secondary preferences.

Condorcet: Rank candidates in order of preference. Simulate a one-on-one match up between each pair of candidates, with candidates receiving a vote for every ballot on which they're ranked higher than their opponent. The candidate who wins all of these matches (i.e. the candidate who would be beat every other candidate one on one) is the winner. This is the only method that will guarantee the winner is the candidate who a majority of voters prefer to every other option (assuming one exists), and is my personal preference. We have also used this method in the past.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2014, 09:30:52 PM by Gulliver »

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #1 on: December 09, 2014, 11:07:05 PM »
I think in general the method that will ensure the most-preferred candidate is elected is best. For this reason I have voted for Condorcet and instant runoff.
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."

Offline Bustos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6041
  • Spam Deity
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #2 on: December 09, 2014, 11:37:40 PM »
Oh didn't realize we could multi-vote.

Vote readjusted.
Allied States of Bustos (WIP)


Brought to you by Bustos

Offline Kardex

  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #3 on: December 10, 2014, 05:23:46 AM »
I vote for either plurality or runoff. If the candidate of majority consensus loses, well that's politics and better luck next time.

Offline Delfos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6975
  • Who is Aniane?
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #4 on: December 10, 2014, 05:48:53 AM »
I hate Condorcet, DOWN WITH CONDORCET

I like that the options already come chewed with opinion :D You're an Instigator Gulliver.

CONDORCET SUCKS - CONDORCET SUCKS - CONDORCET SUCKS

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #5 on: December 10, 2014, 06:32:49 AM »
What's wrong with Condorcet?
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."

Offline Delfos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6975
  • Who is Aniane?
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #6 on: December 10, 2014, 07:32:12 AM »
you're forced to make a stance on policies/people that you don't want to "vote" on. If 5 different ideas (and really should be ideas) would dispute for being Delegate, you should be voting for one of them, not ranking each one as best to worse. In case the most voted no1 has less votes than the one for no2, in a run-off no2 would win. Also it is more transparent that we do direct votes, that votes can be easily accounted by the people who vote, 13 votes are 13 people who voted.

Offline Eluvatar

  • Tech Monkey
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 3111
  • O_O
    • Taijitu.org
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #7 on: December 10, 2014, 08:30:21 AM »
If 5 different ideas (and really should be ideas) would dispute for being Delegate, you should be voting for one of them, not ranking each one as best to worse.
Why?
In case the most voted no1 has less votes than the one for no2, in a run-off no2 would win.
What if most people would prefer no3 to either no1 or no2?
Also it is more transparent that we do direct votes, that votes can be easily accounted by the people who vote, 13 votes are 13 people who voted.
I don't understand this comment. What does it mean for a vote to be "direct"? In a Condorcet vote, you can count how many people voted just as well...
                                 
(click to show/hide)

Offline Delfos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6975
  • Who is Aniane?
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #8 on: December 10, 2014, 08:39:02 AM »
But each person votes is multiplied by the options, it's not 1 vote to one option.

Offline Funkadelia

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1060
  • Contre nous de la tyrannie
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #9 on: December 10, 2014, 08:41:19 AM »
That made literally no sense.

We're not using Borda Count method.
Today's date is: Today is Jocidi, 5 Cielidor AR 5 - Day 1770 of the Glorious Revolution.

Many trials make manifest
The stranger's fate, the curses' bane.
Many touchstones try the stranger
Many fall, but one remains.

Offline Delfos

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 6975
  • Who is Aniane?
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #10 on: December 10, 2014, 09:49:03 AM »
That made literally no sense.

We're not using Borda Count method.

you literally are non-sense

Condorcet != 1 vote to 1 option

Do you want me to make a drawing? I'm not in favor, I dislike this method, why do I need to justify even further? Are there hierarchic positions to fill? No, it's 1 single position, so vote to 1 single option, condorcet forces you vote on all options when you shouldn't need to have an opinion on more than the option you want to it to win.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorcet_method#Comparison_with_instant_runoff_and_first-past-the-post_.28plurality.29

On the lesser evil hypothesis, the condorcet system picks the lesser evil, while in instant run-off or other systems, people consciously vote on the lesser evil. Concorcet is a less conscientious vote imo than condorcet  which sounds like lottery/bingo.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 10:32:46 AM by Delfos »

Offline Kardex

  • *
  • Posts: 16
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #11 on: December 10, 2014, 05:13:22 PM »
One person should get one vote none of this ranking the candidates business. Just count the votes and whoever has the most wins, have a runoff of you want. That's how elections work.

Offline Funkadelia

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 1060
  • Contre nous de la tyrannie
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #12 on: December 10, 2014, 06:33:46 PM »
Both of you fail to understand the dangers of vote splitting.

Say there are three candidates, to keep it simple. Candidate A and B are both very popular. Candidate C is also quite popular, but nowhere near that of A and B. However, there are still people who like C. In a one person, one vote scenario, people are forced to pick one of the more popular candidates, because they feel like or know that candidate C will not win. When you can rank your candidates, it gives C more of a chance.

Additionally, with Condorcet, it allows for instant-runoffs, so that if you have say five candidates, when people pick preferentially and the fifth candidate has no chance, the votes for that candidate go to other candidates that were ranked high, so that people are more likely to get candidates they prefer.

On the contrary, one person one vote (First Past the Post) systems are always where you choose the lesser of two evils, because very often peripheral candidates have little to no chance at success.
Today's date is: Today is Jocidi, 5 Cielidor AR 5 - Day 1770 of the Glorious Revolution.

Many trials make manifest
The stranger's fate, the curses' bane.
Many touchstones try the stranger
Many fall, but one remains.

Offline Gulliver

  • Data Dog
  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 5284
  • Forsooth, do you grok my jive, me hearties?
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #13 on: December 10, 2014, 06:47:34 PM »
you're forced to make a stance on policies/people that you don't want to "vote" on.
Most implementation of Condorcet, including the one we used before, permit you to leave candidates unranked, in which case they're just considered ranked lower than everyone else by default (that is they're so bad you would never vote for them given another option you would be willing to vote for).

In case the most voted no1 has less votes than the one for no2, in a run-off no2 would win.
Even if No. 2 is preferred by a majority to No. 1 and all other candidates, they can only beat them in a runoff if they make it to the runoff. When you go round by round it's possible that the candidate the majority can all agree on gets eliminated too early to get people's second preference votes because they weren't the first choice of a large block.

Also it is more transparent that we do direct votes, that votes can be easily accounted by the people who vote, 13 votes are 13 people who voted.
13 people means 13 ballots under Condorcet. It's still clear enough.

One person should get one vote none of this ranking the candidates business. Just count the votes and whoever has the most wins, have a runoff of you want. That's how elections work.
Actually, that's not how elections work in most countries outside of the former British Empire, and indeed even parts of that have abandoned it. And that's because, as Funk points out, the fact that the winner doesn't need a majority means that either you have a two party system where smaller parties are marginalized, or you split the vote, which can end up with pretty terrible results.

Suppose, for example, in an election where for simplicity's sake the only major issue is the tax rate, Alice wants to increase taxes 5%, Bob wants to decrease taxes by 2.5% and Chuck wants to decrease taxes by 5%. If 40% of people vote for Alice, 35% vote for Bob and 25% vote for Chuck, under first-past-the-post Alice, who wants to increase taxes, will win, even though 60% of voters backed a candidate who wanted to decrease taxes! If you're someone that thinks taxes should go up and this example isn't hitting political home for you, replace this scenario with one where Alice wants to lower them and Bob and Chuck want to increase them, the result is the same.
« Last Edit: December 10, 2014, 07:00:17 PM by Gulliver »

Offline Myroria

  • Citizen
  • *
  • Posts: 4345
Re: Electoral Methods
« Reply #14 on: December 10, 2014, 09:43:03 PM »
Let me give you an example from my home state of Maine. In 2010, we held an election to choose our governor. The four candidates were Republican Paul LePage, independents Elliot Cutler and Shawn Moody, and Democrat Libby Mitchell.

Now, Cutler and Mitchell had most of the same voter base but because they were both running they split their votes between themselves and despite 62% of the electorate opposing LePage, he won with 38% of the vote, as neither Cutler, nor Moody, nor Mitchell h enough votes to beat him. Therefore, despite the fact that the majority of the electorate was opposed to LePage's views, he became our governor. This is the danger of a plurality system - the will of the people can be thwarted by a simple voting method.
"I assure you -- I will be quite content to be a mere mortal again, dedicated to my own amusements."