Taijitu
Forum Meta => Zocalo Archive => City Archive => Archive => The Progressive Party => Topic started by: Eluvatar on June 30, 2007, 08:25:56 AM
-
In this Delegacy election we got mighty close to a perfect tie between the two top candidates.
How should such a tie be resolved?
In desperation, I'm thinking about stuff like endorsement count. Are there better ideas?
-
Well, if we also formalize the security of succession laws to require that candidates start tarting during elections to ease the transition, then I can get behind Delegate endorsements as a tiebreaker. Mind you though, that doesn't resolves Speaker elections, though that is technically a Senate vote for which the Delegate already has tie breaking power.
-
If the Delegate is administering that vote I don't think he should have tiebreaking capacity. It is worrysome.
-
Well, is there anyone who could potentially administer it instead?
-
No-one. Only the Delegate can really administer that vote. I guess the only solution is for the Delegate to break that tie, at least that way their not being able to vote normally is less unpleasant.
-
Majority vote of the court perhaps? Or, simply a run off election?
-
A run off can tie as well, and would be unnecessary as we already have ranked ballots already. And with this last near tie, when Dixie and PoD were tied they also tied in IRV, plurality, Run Off and Borda Count.
-
Well, perhaps look to RL for inspiration? What would happen in the US if two candidates tied? Or the UK?
-
Well, as the UK is just a parliamentary system they'd just find another candidate and hold another vote, and in the U.S. it is thrown into the House. Either way, we have to hold a whole other vote, which I would want to avoid.
-
I really don't want it to go to the Court to decide-- that's really equivalent to making no rule :shrug:
-
I have one suggestion, get rid of the damned condorcet voting, its just stupid. Pick your candidate and that's that, also, it seems much easier to get a tie with that system. Lets just go back to simple easy to read voting and results, ties will be less likely.
Another thought, we could make the speaker ineligible to vote, then, in the event of a tie, he/she could cast the deciding vote.
-
No, ties would not be less likely with another system. I already told you, had this last election been by a Plurality vote or a Run off vote there would have been a tie when there was a tie by the Condorcet vote as well. I for one will strongly oppose any attempt to remove Condorcet voting. Plurality voting can elect a candidate who is absolute hated by the majority of voters, and certainly does not elect the most genuinely over all preferred candidate. Run off requires two votes and again does not necessarily elect the truly overall preferred candidate. Further more, the Condorcet system also proved itself in the last Delegate election when candidates dropped out. Because the ballots are preferential it was not necessary to have people vote again.
-
One thing that I should do to further let people become familiar and comfortable with Condorcet Voting is to perfect my automated counting system to the point that it is user-friendly and can perhaps be used to play around with different scenarios.
A Question: Could anyone in our Party who is not too technically inclined take a look at the .yaml file in the zip I posted in the Information on Condorcet voting and tell me how intuitive it felt to them? (It can be opened in notepad or any text editor)
-
I tried Elu, not sure if the problem is on my end with this out of date obsolete piece of crap computer, or on the forum's end, as it would not allow me to download the file.
I'm not saying condorcet voting does not have it's upside, I just don't think people should need a program to help them understand how to vote, or the results of their voting, we've always wanted democracy that appealed to the masses, the regular joe players, for lack of a better term. The condorcet system is just overly complicated. I'm sure i'm not the only person that feels that way, probably just the only one that gives enough of a damn so say so lol. But, whatever, *shrug* Any other party members that agree with me though, please feel free to speak up.
-
Well, the principle is quite simple: find the single candidate who beats every other candidate one on one by a simple majority of votes and declare them the winner. Likewise, voting is simple: rank the candidates in your order of preference. My guess is that you are confused about how the final vote is tallied and the Condorcet winner is found. That though I think can be explained quite readily. You have a matrix, one axis representing every candidate as "Runner", the other every candidate as "Opponent". For every ballot cast in which Candidate X is ranked higher than Candidate Y, you add 1 to Runner X-Opponent Y. To then check the winner in any pairwise contest between a candidate X and a candidate Y, compare the value of Runner X-Opponent Y to Runner Y-Opponent X. If Runner X-Opponent Y's value is higher than Runner Y-Opponent X, X beats Y one on one X as more people ranked X over Y in their ballots than people ranked Y over X, and vice versa. In short, the matrix is simply a convenient way to find the winner of each pairwise contest and subsequently find the single Condorcet winner.
-
MEGO (my eyes glaze over). To be fair, I'm not at my sharpest right now, but I had trouble figuring it out during this recent election. It IS a lot more complicated to count than the elections I'm used to.
-
Pod won because more voters ranked him over Dixie in their ballots than voters ranked Sovereign Dixie over PoD in their ballots, and more voters ranked PoD over Soly in their ballots than voters ranked Soly over Pod in their ballots. From this we conclude that one on one PoD would defeat Dixie and one on one PoD would defeat Soly, making him the Condorcet winner.
Or, another way to say it is that a majority expressed preference for PoD relative to Dixie by ranking him higher than Dixie in their ballots, and a majority likewise expressed preference for PoD over Soly by ranking him higher in their ballots than Soly. As a majority preferred PoD over each other candidate one on one, he was declared the winner.
-
Er, let's put it more simply.
Most voters ranked PoD over SD, most voters ranked PoD over Soly. And that's all she wrote.
-
She? Regardless, that is the simplest way to state why PoD won. While I'm here though, perhaps an explanation of those nifty matrixes would be enlightening:
| PoD | Soly | SD | |
| PoD | 0 | 17 | 13 |
| Soly | 7 | 0 | 7 |
| SD | 12 | 17 | 0 |
The matrix above is Left beats Top (that is to say, the Candidates on the left are classed as runners and the candidates on the top are classed as opponents). Thus, each numerical value simply represents the number of ballots cast in which the candidate to the left beat (was ranked higher than) the candidate on the top. So, for example, we can tell that 13 ballots were cast ranking PoD over Dixie. Using this info, we can then determine the winner of any pairwise contest between two candidates. For example, a contest between PoD and Dixie one on one, we can see that 13 voters preferred Pod to Dixie, and 12 preferred Dixie to Pod. As More ranked Pod over Dixe, Pod wins the pairwise contest between him and Dixie. Likewise, he wins the pairwise contest with Soly, and as he beats each other candidate one on one he is the Condorcet winner.
The other table summarizes the final results. The number is the margin of votes between the two candidates in the pairwise contest, with blue numbers representing victory for the candidate at left and red victory for the candidate at the top. As all of the results to the right of PoD are blue, he is the winner. Likewise, all of the results under his name on the top are red.
| PoD | Soly | SD | |
| PoD | 0 | 10 | 1 |
| Soly | -10 | 0 | -10 |
| SD | -1 | 10 | 0 |
Some spaces are left blank because a candidate cannot run again themselves. That matrix itself is found by simply stacking the individual matrix for each ballot.
-
:D I needed some private lessons with Prag on IRC to be able to follow and calculate that myself, so it can be done. :fight:
For me the point of SD is another: is this system unpopular with the voters? Until now I have heard some saying it was hard to oversee it and match the pairs, but I have seen no complaints. (I think the last was Durnia, with a vague innuendo about the results being faked - a post left unanswered as I type this) :-\. Now, until such complaints are worded, should we start a questioning-poll asking if the Condorcet is unwanted / should be changed? I personally have got used to the thing and would not push for a change.
she didn't say I love you or I'm thinking of you
she didn't say sincerely or I miss you dearly
at the end was just goodbye my friend
just a note
that's all she wrote Howgh.