We used to have this back in DG1, but I think it was so rarely used, that we forgot about it. Now, we have a few elections with 6+ canidates that we may need a run-off (one has 8!).

So, I propose this: (not sure which article, paragraph etc. it would fall in - haven't memorized those yet. ;)).

- If any election has 6 or more nominees, then a run-off poll will be held for 1/2 the total number of canidates (doubt we'll have more than 10).
- The poll would run for 48 hours.

As far as I know, there is nothing in the current ruleset regarding runoff elections, and we have several very close ones. I think we definately need to have runoffs for these, but wanted to start this thread to decide exactly which ones should be selected, and how they should be handled.

My suggestion is that any election where the winner did not get 50% of the votes, the top two people (or more in the event of a tie) should proceed to a runoff.

Thoughts?

you do realize that is basically every election except Chief Justice right?

Due to lack of judiciary, and the fact that no amendment can pass before next month, you mods are going to have to do runoff elections, and the demogame will have to accomodate runoffs into our rules.

you do realize that is basically every election except Chief Justice right?

No, actually. I didn't. :blush:

That was kind of my intention. I wanted to avoid any bias in my decision. I barely looked at the threads long enough to vote, in most cases.

At any rate, that probably won't work...

Saying "less than 50%" would be double-work if say, that 45% were actually a landslide. (i.e., 45%, 20%, 20%, 15%). That's why I mentioned the very old rule of "if more than 6...", since it lowers the canidate pool. I think there's only 2 or 3 threads like that.

It may be to cumbersome to conduct.

repoll with anyone who recieved voting percentage equal or greater to


100%/number of candidates

repoll with anyone who recieved 100%/number of candidates.

That didn't make much sense...

repoll with anyone who recieved 100%/number of candidates.That means: never. Mathematically impossible to have a run-off, except if each candidate got exactly the same %-age of votes.

What about if the victor is below 50% and the number 2 in the election (or 2 and 3, or 2,3 and 4, or ...) are within 10% of that contestant ?

There's another example of why we need rules. donsig, are you reading this?

That didn't make much sense...
If there were 3 candidates, those with at least 33% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 5 candidates, those with at least 20% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 6 candidates, those with at least 16,6% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 10 candidates, those with at least 10% of the votes go to repoll.

...
I'm not sure if this will work very well, but I guess it will depend on how many people that votes.

yer i like Cheetah's way of doing things, i think it may be hard to implement but still.

A much easier solution would be to allow only one accepted nomination per citizen. Although for now, this is the system we were rushed into accepting, so we need to deal with the aftermath of doing so.

Deciding to hold run-off elections without prior notice is bad practice, and I will not stand for it. If you would like to implement this for Term 2, we will have plenty of time to discuss it. And even still, run-off elections would not only be time-consuming(we need to push the nom process up even further to implement the process), but would also negate the legitimate winner of the "first" contest. Why should said person become the victim of a ruleset made in haste?

Yet in the end, I still see only one logical solution, and that is to put the kibosh on the electoral free-for-all.

even as one of those people who had a large number of nominations. I am in favour of being limited to a single nomination.

yes there should be some sort of limit on number of nominations that someone can accept whether it be whatever we need to have a law stating this.

I am infavor of having a limited nominations, but not to restrictive. I would like to propose an idea that any non-leader (any persion who does not hold an offical office) should be alowed to run for 2 elections while a leader can run for only one.

This is a simple system, used to elect the Mayor of London (roughly, might have some differences.) If the first place person ranks less then 50%, then the top two go to election (the system for the French Presidency) plus a None of The Above option (NOTA). If NOTA wins, then both other people running against NOTA (hah, cool name, it'd be funny if a member of the DG was named NOTA) they're considered defeated, and a new election is called. This, or some variation thereof, would in my mind be both democratic and fair, and as such, would be the ideal situation.

With the rules in place (or lack thereof) we must proceed with the most intuitive system.

For this election, the person with the highest vote total wins, regardless of how low the percentage is. In the case of a tie, all those with the same vote total face off in a runoff election. If someone who would be involved in a runoff also wins another election and chooses to accept that position, then the runoff is resolved automatically. If the winner of a position accepts a different position, the 2nd place moves up. :hammer:

Curufinwe, that would be a great system for a large country with people who have paying jobs to work out, but for our game it sounds too laborous and time consuming. We need some way to quickly find the result of an election. I am in favor of, in order:
1. Limiting players to one nomination only. In polls where 3 or more people are running and the winner does not recieve 50% or more of the vote, hold a 24 or 48-hour runoff betweent he top two candidates.

2.Without limiting the nomination number, use the current time limit for the election on the first phase, then hold a 24-48 hour runoff between the top two contenders.

Donovoan sayswould ... negate the legitimate winner of the "first" contest. Why should said person become the victim of a ruleset made in haste?

This assumption is not true if you have ever studied election theory. If we decide to use a runoff system, the candidate who wins the second election is the winner of the majority. The pluraliry winner is basically nothing in a runoff system, but it's fair because its based of of majority.

Of course, without a system of laws in place yet, and no elected officials yet to lead, the only choice that could be complted in a timely fashion is having the mods take over and decide when to hold runoffs. To vote on the process or a new amendment to the constitution would take too long in my opinion. I really just want to get the game started :-D

Its either going to be first-past-the-post or mod enforced runoffs.

Either way the constitution shouldnt touch this election cycle since it is only being ratified in the next 45 minutes, and we are well into election process.

Retroactive law is not something I agree with.

We can consider this a discussion thread then for either a law or a constitutional amendment.

Cheetah's plan is good. I say we go with that one. I would not like only acception per citizen. I think there should be a limit though, but NOT 1 per citizen I think 2 or 3 would be nice. Once we get a Judgicary (spelling?) I should request that.

In my opinion, run-off elections are used for candidates that end up in a tie for first (or possibly for second - Deputy). Running extra elections when there is a declared winner alreadt is a waste of time and way of giving people in charge a second chance for the candidate of their choice (if they hadn't won) to reach for the ring again.

We don't need fancy formulas or complicated situations. If there is a tie for first or second place and no one bows out, then hold a run-off. If not, stick with the winners.

At this point I would also like to state my position on one campaign for each citizen. I am fully in favor of only allowing a citizen to run for one Office each election cycle.

If there were 3 candidates, those with at least 33% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 5 candidates, those with at least 20% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 6 candidates, those with at least 16,6% of the votes go to repoll.
If there were 10 candidates, those with at least 10% of the votes go to repoll.

...
I'm not sure if this will work very well, but I guess it will depend on how many people that votes.

This system seems to be almost as perfect as practicable. I would vote for it beginning in the next election cycle. The only problem I see is continuing votes. For example, you have 10 candidates. 6 of them receive at least 10% of the votes. In the runoff, 3 of them get 33% of the vote. etc...

So I would increase the cutoff percentages by 2 - 5 percentage points per election. If only one person got the required cutoff percentage, then that person would be the people's choice.

cheetahs plan? it was my idea. :p

You people are missing the whole point in that we don't have time for a system like that. It will mean moving up an election cycle that is already starting on the 23rd of the month to accomodate this practice. Do we really want an election cycle that takes up 1/3 of each term?

And still, there are several that will have been declared winners of their respective posts within the next few days. Why should these legitimately elected citizens have to run again when they already won?

@KCC - I understand your concerns about getting the will of the majority. However, no one payed any mind to this while they put themselves up for as many elections as they could. Removing the acceptance of multiple nominations is a substantial cure for this. However, it may not solve the issue entirely. Therefore, we just have to treat elections as if we have a 3-4(to 8?) party system and honor the plurailty as the peoples choice. When measures are put in place to reduce the negative effects seen here, plurality victories should happen less and less.

@ And finally Chieftess - With all due respect, we are practically in a state of anarchy because you decided we didn't need rules to play the game. Now you are attempting to use this lack of a ruleset to make things up as they happen, which only further fans the flames. And when you take into account that you have an outside chance of gaining the Presidency from a rightfully elected(thus far) DaveShack by imposing previously undiscussed runoff polls, you can hopefully see why I am skeptical of this. So, if you have any respect for this game, I kindly ask that you halt discussions for runoff elections. Nothing good can come of it, and will only stand to throw a very promising game into chaos.

we are in chaos already donovan zoi, or have you failed to notice that ratification passed for 2/3 yes votes while census is 15 yes votes above ratification of the Executive, Legislative, and Provincial articles 24 hours before 2 of them expire?

OK, we will be in even more chaos then, Immortal. I stand corrected. ;)

Care to address my other concerns?

Well, it should have been decided by the mods by now whether they are forcing repolls down our throats or not. THEIR feet dragging is holding up this game now.

as far as Im concerned, for the sake of not destroying the game under a tide of irrelevent elections, I suggest a first-past-the-post election.

My suggestions:
1.Most votes wins no matter how many candidates
2.1 nomination PER citizen no matter their position in the DG.

OK, agreed. Now to wait for the final call. Since the Trade Department is pretty slow this time of year, I plan to help fix these things. Looks like we have more work to do. ;)

cheetahs plan? it was my idea. :p

I had to go back and re-read the posts. Actually, you are right. You did come up with the idea. Its just that Cheetah re-wrote it in a manner a simpleton like me could understand. :)

@KCC - I understand your concerns about getting the will of the majority. However, no one payed any mind to this while they put themselves up for as many elections as they could. Removing the acceptance of multiple nominations is a substantial cure for this. However, it may not solve the issue entirely. Therefore, we just have to treat elections as if we have a 3-4(to 8?) party system and honor the plurailty as the peoples choice. When measures are put in place to reduce the negative effects seen here, plurality victories should happen less and less.


I agree that people should only be able to run for one office. As it stands, people are so determined to achieve an office, any office, that many (though not all) run for multiple offices.

There is nothing wrong with one runoff of the top two candidates when there is a large number of candidates and no one receives a clear mandate. However, I would not support such a plan for the current election cycle because that would be changing the rules in the midst of the election.

@ And finally Chieftess - With all due respect, we are practically in a state of anarchy because you decided we didn't need rules to play the game.

Since I am new I don't know much about what has gone on before. However, I don't understand why the Constitution and Laws can't carry forward from game to game. Then they can be modified as time goes by, but they don't have to be recreated from scratch. It seems to me it would streamline the process.

We pretty much based this ruleset on the previous ones. We just weren't too organized this time out. Things will get better, though.

has there been a problem in the past with keeping the laws going into the next demogame? It would be more like a continuing country rather than each game being separate. It seems logical to me unless it has been tried and failed.

PS: this thread feels like the start of a revolution hah.

Tried and failed, the thing about government is it has a tendency to grow.

Big rulebooks proved to be the death of the last game.

I've said before, if we draw from an old rule we used to have, (actually looked it up - worded slightly differently than I thought)...

If there are more than 5 candidates the Moderators may hold preliminary elections.

It's in http://demogame.civfanatics.net under the DG1 (Phoenetica) ruleset.

I would say this - If there's any contested (no canidate has more than 33% of the vote), then the top 1/2 of the vote-getters have a 48 (or 24?) hour run-off poll.

i.e., if there's 8 canidates, ranging from 10-25%, then the top 4 would be repolled. Simple as that.

I suggest moving up the general election cycle up 1 day. Immediately after the main elections end there will be a 1-day time where any runoff elections would be held for a 1-day poll. That is simple, quick, and gets the job done.

If there are more than 5 candidates the Moderators may hold preliminary elections.

That would be fine if any of the elections in question were announced as preliminary elections. But sadly, none of them were. Beisides, I am sure I can scan the archives of DGs 2, 3 and 4 to find an election with 6 contestants that did not require a preliminary poll. This would nullify the dust-ridden precedent you have unearthed here. ;)

Run-off polls for ties only!

I still agree with DZ. Run-off polls are for ties only. The ruling class will be making a big mistake running run-off polls here, for any reason, under any circumstances.

i think that run-off polls for this term should be for ties only, we can address the situation next term.

Noob question
Gert-Janl had a poll earlier on wether or not to allow people to hold a run for more than one office, it went 2 for unlimited number, 8 for limited number and 8 for only 1 office, when the poll closed I THINK that gert-janl said that since the amount of votes for more than one office per election was more than one office and that their would be a poll for how many offices you could run for, so I wonder if we could just put that poll up and then decide on a run off system, for what it's worth I favor a runoff in a case when 3 or more are running and the winner did not ger 50% and then the top 2 or 3 would be in the Runoff, unless their was a multi way tie and then they would all be in the runoff

More dictates from above?

Oh. Joy.

To keep this relevant - runoffs only when there are multiple people tied and the position is offered to one of them.

The lovely thing about the current election system, is that the person with the most votes (supposedly the winner) can turn down the election, resulting in the next tier of votes being tied. Oh joy.

-- Ravensfire

At the time of this post, the only election I consider to be in need of a runoff is the one for science advisor. The top vote getter has only 21% of the votes.

I do strongly suggest you severely limit the number of offices people can run for in the future.

This first bit is all maths so skip if you want, the examples should be claer thoug hI hope

I agree with run-offs, and I think Immortal/Cheetah's example is good, except, what happens if in a 3 person election we have

37%, 32%, 31% - very close but no run off.
60%, 35%, 5% - not (as) close and a run off!
or extremes:
66%, 34%, 0%
or worse:
60%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 10%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%, 0%.

Thus just saying repoll for anyone with 100% / #of candidates isn't satisfactory, so say repoll any where winner is within 1/5 of his precentage to the next candidate.

THis means

36%, 32%, 31% would repoll 36 and 32 (we HAVE to eliminate 31 otherwise it just keeps going!)
60%, 35%, 5% would NOT repoll, second place would have had to have been within 60/5 = 12% of 60% = 48%.

Basically, anyone with 63% of the votes would NEVER repoll EVER.

This ISNT as hard to calculate as some have claimed, and can easily be done on a calculator as if 2nd% > 1st% * 4/5 then repoll otherwise dont. It also means we get electees with a clear majority and if we decide to still allow people to run for several offices we can remove them from the formulas and instead of choosing the runner up to act in that office have a run-off coinciding with the others, and as was so well said, this would make sure the winners were will of the majority.

This assumption is not true if you have ever studied election theory. If we decide to use a runoff system, the candidate who wins the second election is the winner of the majority. The pluraliry winner is basically nothing in a runoff system, but it's fair because its based of of majority.

Just a bit of replying

You people are missing the whole point in that we don't have time for a system like that. It will mean moving up an election cycle that is already starting on the 23rd of the month to accomodate this practice. Do we really want an election cycle that takes up 1/3 of each term?

We DO have time, for two cycles of elections, if they start as soon as possible after the first, it shouldn't take up too much more time, and the run-off can be a shorter poll. Also, NO WINNER - even those without a repoll - would take ffice until after the repolls have finished because in effect, they did got to repoll but were the only candidate....

I AM against one candidate/one nomination, because this might mean that many candidates accept nominations for the more favourable jobs (over 10 maybe!), yet less favourable ones have only a couple of applicants, spread it out and have run-offs as standard, the first set act as prelim in most cases except for a clear majority (formula above)


Oooh my 100th post was a long one, I hope it made sense.

I'm not even going to try to quote your manifesto. ;)

I believe if anyone gets 51% they automatically are elected anyway. I think the only problem with the current system would be that if they were also elected to another position and declined this one, the runners up probably wouldn't have much of a mandate.

Also, run-offs in the current election cycle would be bad. As I've stated on many occassions, we can't change what "everyone" perceives as the rules in the midst of the election. You might as well throw it to the mods or the CJ to decide the election. BAD. BAD. BAD.

Obviously it wouldn't be implemented this cycle of elections, its unconstitutional (I think)

Indeed. After this cycle of elections is passed, and only the tied candidates have had a runoff/repoll, we can think of something to add/amend in the constitution.

But...why so complicated? Many have already proposed it, and still it is ignored. If we limit the number of nominations that you can accept to 1, we don't need all this mathematical trouble in our constitution.
Secondly, it would be more fair than the system we use now, since some candidates will win an election this term, who were actually last in the election...that's strange (see, for example, the Judge Advocate position, where probably the one with the fewest votes will get the position). I had very good experiences with that system in the terms of DGIV that I attended. Why turning back to this multi-nomination-system?

But...why so complicated? Many have already proposed it, and still it is ignored. If we limit the number of nominations that you can accept to 1, we don't need all this mathematical trouble in our constitution.


I AM against one candidate/one nomination, because this might mean that many candidates accept nominations for the more favourable jobs (over 10 maybe!), yet less favourable ones have only a couple of applicants.

If we limit 1candidate/1nomination, the less favourable jobs wont be applied for as much as they are now where they can be used as back-ups if the first choice isn't accepted, Im in favour of limiting to 2/3 positions, but limiting to one position may leave some empty if they are undesirable or filled only by members who aren't completely willing.

OTOH will new users lean towards 'less favourable' offices, because they think they don't make a chance in other elections (which is not true: see this election!). That way most offices will be filled.

And if there is really an office noone wants, we should consider scrapping that one, since this game should be (and have always been :)) fun!

In response to the subject of this thread:

So, you propose we have an election with the available candidates and we vote. Then you want to have another vote with a subset of those candidates? Makes no sense to me.

The only run-offs should be for elections that have candidates tied for the most votes.

Zorven, the reason for a second set of elections is so that the winners are those whom the majority of voters wish in office (see quote I used from KCCrusader a few posts back), with several nominees, the winner isn't necessarily the one whom the majority of people support, with only two nominees it is.

Zorven, the reason for a second set of elections is so that the winners are those whom the majority of voters wish in office (see quote I used from KCCrusader a few posts back), with several nominees, the winner isn't necessarily the one whom the majority of people support, with only two nominees it is.

I understand the desire for a majority in support of a candidate, but elections could drag on too long. Two elections would be 8 days, plus at least two more for campaigning. That is already a third of each term. I have no problem with pluralities.

or reduce the time for the votes, in the vast majority of cases people should be able to vote within 48 hours, means 4 days electioning for 2 sets of votes...

In response to the subject of this thread:

So, you propose we have an election with the available candidates and we vote. Then you want to have another vote with a subset of those candidates? Makes no sense to me.

The only run-offs should be for elections that have candidates tied for the most votes.
I agree, why do we basically put people that lost back in just because the person in first didnt get a certain percent of votes, this would make the election cycle much much longer

One person, one vote, one time.

My reasoning for liking runoff is that sometimes multiple candidates makes the most popular candidate lose because people with similiar views are running, an example would be here in the US, the Republican party held a primary to determine it's nominee for US senate in South Carolina, in the Primary Fred Beasly won with 37% of the vote and the next closest finisher was fred demint with 26% and several other candidates below that, since he did not win with the 40 or 50 percent required Beasly was sent into a runoff and lost 59%-41%, because demint got more support when all the other candidates who had similiar views dropped out, but hey that's just my 2 cents :nuke:

At the time of this post, the only election I consider to be in need of a runoff is the one for science advisor. The top vote getter has only 21% of the votes.

I do strongly suggest you severely limit the number of offices people can run for in the future.

Yes, that's all I see too, but may I ask, how many people are going to be in the run - off poll if there is one?

- TP

Yes, that's all I see too, but may I ask, how many people are going to be in the run - off poll if there is one?

- TP

The top 3 vote getters...I don't remember off-hand who that is...

I agree, why do we basically put people that lost back in just because the person in first didnt get a certain percent of votes, this would make the election cycle much much longer

This is because with multiple candidates, the candidate who wins isn't necessarily backed by the majority, i.e. if there was a poll of him and the others, he may lose because the remaining voters don't split their votes between candidates.

This is because with multiple candidates, the candidate who wins isn't necessarily backed by the majority, i.e. if there was a poll of him and the others, he may lose because the remaining voters don't split their votes between candidates.

I don't think we need majorities, and I don't believe any of the runoffs have been due to this, but we do need a clearcut plurality, although that remains to be defined.