Runoff elections?

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.

Immortal said:

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

Click to expand...

No, actually. I didn't.

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

Immortal said:

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

Click to expand...

That didn't make much sense...

Immortal said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Chieftess said:

That didn't make much sense...

Click to expand...

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.