CoS Amendment: Judicial Election Process

[DaveShack]

Folks,

It is clear from the new judiciary election that having a shotgun approach to electing the CJ and AJs using a single poll will not work the way most of us want it to. We really need a way to indicate our 2nd and 3rd choice.

I would like to propose that the CoS be amended to specify 3 judiciary polls, labeled as CJ, AJ1, AJ2, and having an identical set of candidates. The winner of the CJ poll is CJ. The AJs are the winners of the AJ polls, after subtracting the CJ winner from the AJ1 poll, and the CJ and AJ1 winners from the AJ2 poll. Alternatively, any candidate who wants to be AJ but not CJ may be left off the CJ poll.

I know there will be at least one argument that this proposal violates the 1 person = 1 vote principle.

Let's hear from a wider set of people this time...

 

[zorven]

I agree that the one poll system does not work - we need 3 seperate polls for 3 seperate Leaders positions.

DaveShack, that is an interesting proposal. I will have to think on it before I comment.

edit: And I think we need to have seperate elections for Governors-at-Large. The same arguments that apply here should apply there.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I really think that having separate polls for either set of elections will only add more confusion, and will still leave us with a sinking feeling during election time. I think the only solution is to allow for citizens to vote for their three choices in one multi-choice poll.

Keep in mind that this can be checked by the Moderators, and anyone that votes for more than three candidates can have their votes disqualified. I don't think we should penalize those who select less than three candidates, however.

I can check with Thunderfall to make sure we can monitor multi-choice polls. Also, if we do this, it is quite obvious that we need to to restrict from seeking office any moderator in charge of this task(most likely myself).

Thoughts?

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi
I really think that having separate polls for either set of elections will only add more confusion,

I don't see how there would be any confusion. The judiciary is basically the same as last game except some different titles. So why should the election process be different?

I think the only solution is to allow for citizens to vote for their three choices in one multi-choice poll.

That would be fine provided explicit instructions to the voters are in the first post (every term) to the effect that they can only vote for up to 3. Also, I think you would have to verify every election done this way and report your findings to give the citizens comfort that there was no problems with the election.

 

[Cyc]

I believe both of these ideas are the wrong way to approach the situation. It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do. I really believe this approach you will try to change to (either one) will just cause more confusion and is also ripe for abuse.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Cyc
It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do.

Let's look at the effect of this poll. It selects 3 people to fill what many people consider to be the 3 most important positions in the entire demogame. What is wrong with allowing the citizens to choose their top 3 candidates?

Here is a contrived example to point out the flaw in the current system. Take a hypothetical set of 5 candidates: Abe, Bart, Charlie, Doug, Evelyn. There are 10 citizens with the following preferences, in order of 1st, 2nd, 3rd choice, (abbreviated)

• abc
• cba
• dba
• eba
• ebc
• bca
• dec
• edc
• bdc
• bcd

A has 1 1st place, 0 2nd place, 4 3rd place = 5 votes
B has 3 1st place, 5 2nd place, 0 3rd place = 8 votes
C has 1 1st place, 2 2nd place, 5 3rd place = 8 votes
D has 2 1st place, 2 2nd place, 1 3rd place = 5 votes
E has 3 1st place, 1 2nd place, 0 3rd place = 4 votes

totals 10, 10, 10 = 30 votes

Under the current system, the judiciary would be B, E, D with a runoff between Bart and Evelyn for Chief Justice. Evelyn has the least total support, while Charlie, who is tied for 1st in total support, gets left out entirely because the people are not allowed to state their 2nd and 3rd choices directly.

Please offer an alternative which prevents this hypothetical situation from occurring. I'm willing to listen to any system which gives the people the ability to choose what they actually want.

 

[Cyc]

Yeah, great work, DS. I'm sure the average Joe player is prepared to do all this extra math to confirm who you declare the winners are.

Let's take the current poll for the Judiciary. We have 7 candidates. One candidate has 8 votes and looks to be at this point in time a clear winner (therefore CJ), the next runner up has 4 votes and the one behind him has 3 votes. The last two would be the Associate Justices, only with no math involved. The people had one vote to make. Simple. The top three vote-getters were elected. Simple.

I suppose you could get the same results if you warped and twisted the process, and possibly confused the citizens voting, but why would we want to do this?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I believe both of these ideas are the wrong way to approach the situation. It is clear that you are unhappy with the current poll, although it does exactly what it is designed to do. I really believe this approach you will try to change to (either one) will just cause more confusion and is also ripe for abuse.

At the core of this issue is that there are three people elected, but the people only get to cast one vote. The citizens should be allowed to vote for their first, second and third choice.

-----

As far as the CJ, AJ1, AJ2 system is concerned, there are too many permutations and combinations that could negatively affect the results. What if on citizen votes Boots for AJ1 and zorven for AJ2, and the next votes for zorven for AJ1 and Boots for AJ2, and the third votes in Boots for all three offices? Each election would be poorly represented because of the different voting combos people could make.

If we have three different polls, should a person be able to vote for the same person in all three polls? I don't think so, and therefore I would have to check three individual polls for the Judiciary instead of one multi-choice poll.

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.

Hopefully this somewhat makes sense. You are looking at 1am rambling here.......

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Let's look at the effect of this poll. It selects 3 people to fill what many people consider to be the 3 most important positions in the entire demogame. What is wrong with allowing the citizens to choose their top 3 candidates?

Dave, we shouldn't need to rank our selections. If we are merely allowed to select three candidates in one multi-choice poll, the most worthy candidates should still find themselves close to the top.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


At the core of this issue is that there are three people elected, but the people only get to cast one vote. The citizens should be allowed to vote for their first, second and third choice.

-----

As far as the CJ, AJ1, AJ2 system is concerned, there are too many permutations and combinations that could negatively affect the results. What if on citizen votes Boots for AJ1 and zorven for AJ2, and the next votes for zorven for AJ1 and Boots for AJ2, and the third votes in Boots for all three offices? Each election would be poorly represented because of the different voting combos people could make.

If we have three different polls, should a person be able to vote for the same person in all three polls? I don't think so, and therefore I would have to check three individual polls for the Judiciary instead of one multi-choice poll.

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.

Hopefully this somewhat makes sense. You are looking at 1am rambling here.......

Exactly DZ. Both of the situational election problems would occur using those setups. With the "1 person - 1 vote" setup, everyone votes once for who the want to win, period. The end result is the top three vote getters (or maybe the top three most qualified) are elected. No confusing process or results encountered.

 

[DaveShack]

Originally posted by Cyc
Let's take the current poll for the Judiciary. We have 7 candidates. One candidate has 8 votes and looks to be at this point in time a clear winner (therefore CJ), the next runner up has 4 votes and the one behind him has 3 votes. The last two would be the Associate Justices, only with no math involved. The people had one vote to make. Simple. The top three vote-getters were elected. Simple.

I suppose you could get the same results if you warped and twisted the process, and possibly confused the citizens voting, but why would we want to do this?

Easy for the winner to say, hard for the losers...

The whole point is that if we were allowed to choose multiple candidates, then the people with 4 and 3 votes in the current example probably would not win. Someone with no votes at all in the current poll would likely be one of the AJ's in a multi-choice poll. We all know this because the previous set of polls shows it to be true.

Assuming the mods can detect votes which select more than the allowed number of candidates, the multi-choice poll is the way to go. It's good enough for RL (school board elections, city council, even state legislature in Arizona, just to name a few). If RL can handle multi-choice, surely a game can handle it.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

Exactly DZ. Both of the situational election problems would occur using those setups. With the "1 person - 1 vote" setup, everyone votes once for who the want to win, period. The end result is the top three vote getters (or maybe the top three most qualified) are elected. No confusing process or results encountered.

Not necessarily, Cyc. The citizens should be allowed 3 votes for the elected offices. Period. Any less has the chance of putting our system at the mercy of small voting blocks that we know exist in the DemoGame.

The example of Peri in the current election(only one vote so far in the "free for all" after being top vote getter for the disqualified AJ elections)screams out as a denouncement of the "one vote for three positions" method. The returns are still early, so I will keep my eye on this one.

 

[Cyc]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi


Not necessarily, Cyc. The citizens should be allowed 3 votes for the elected offices. Period. Any less has the chance of putting our system at the mercy of small voting blocks that we know exist in the DemoGame.

The example of Peri in the current election(only one vote so far in the "free for all" after being top vote getter for the disqualified AJ elections)screams out as a denouncement of the "one vote for three positions" method. The returns are still early, so I will keep my eye on this one.

True, DZ. This goes to point out that if we hadn't of run the Judicial elctions in an improper manner to begin with (let's say you had them re-organized when you got my PM out them), you would not have to point out the mishaps that are caused when correcting the situation. You arguement is based on faulty elections, DZ.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

You arguement is based on faulty elections, DZ.

It would be nice if you would respond to my points, Cyc. There are three people here so far that take issue with our current structure, yet you are the only one so far to defend it. You introduce yourself as the peoples' champion, and yet I believe that you are doing the people a disservice if you do not allow them to have their say in all three Judiciary positions. If you are truly fighting for the rights of the people, this would be the logical place to start.

I urge anyone browsing or lurking this thread to post their opinion.

 

[Cyc]

I urge you, DZ to defend an Election Office that based the Gubernatorial Election polls on the same legislation they said they couldn't find for the Judiciary Poll.

If you notice the Gubernatorial poll went off without a hitch and was done exactly like the Judiciary was supposed to be done. EVERYONE was happy with that election poll. But that would shoot your theory down wouldn't it.

Any idea on why the Election Office read right by the Judiciary part of proposed CoS Section Y in order to find the Gubernatorial part? Probably not, that would shoot down another part of your theory.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

I urge you, DZ to defend an Election Office that based the Gubernatorial Election polls on the same legislation they said they couldn't find for the Judiciary Poll.

If you notice the Gubernatorial poll went off without a hitch and was done exactly like the Judiciary was supposed to be done. EVERYONE was happy with that election poll. But that would shoot your theory down wouldn't it.

Any idea on why the Election Office read right by the Judiciary part of proposed CoS Section Y in order to find the Gubernatorial part? Probably not, that would shoot down another part of your theory.

Actually, look closer and you will see that the Election Office treated the campaign of "Unnamed Province" just as any Gubernatorial election in the past, and did not adhere to new law. The was no mention whatsoever of Governors-at-large in the first post. In fact, Governors-at-large do not get mentioned until the second page of the thread(by Plexus).

I suspect that the reason there was no outcry in the Governor's race is because there was not as much publicity. All eyes were on the Judicial election for a whole host of reasons. Who will complete the ruleset? How will the as-yet-unratified new system work? There is alot at stake in the Judiciary this game, so people tend to get a bit nuttier about that.

And I am one of those nuts. I would have liked to support the candidacy of who I considered to be the three most objective and experienced jurists in our land. Instead, I was forced to choose only one of them and cast the other two aside, even though there are three positions to fill. This is wrong. It is also wrong in the Gubernatorial race and we should adopt a similar practice there, whether anyone cares or not.

Keep in mind that anything that gets passed here will not nullify your certain victory, so you should not take any of this personally. I do want a different system in place for Term 2.

And I am still looking for less combative, completely objective responses for our soon-to-be-crowned Chief Justice. Otherwise, this should prove to be a most interesting term indeed.

 

[Cyc]

Heheheh. Combative. Come on DZ. We have known each other since you came aboard the Demogame. If you remember, you used to work for me in the RPG. I was your first employer here. We have been discussing policies for longer than most people have been here. I am not fighting you. We are debating.

This is a Democracy Game. A game in which different ideas and policies are debated to come up with the most appropriate solution. Some debates are hotly contested, but that doesn't mean people are fighting. It means they believe in their solution and want to express their opinions of it.

I also realize that it's easy not to see things that other people can point out, just as it can be easy to only see some people's side of an arguement. That's the nature of politics, and this is a political game. No hard feelings, big guy.

 

[Furiey]

Originally Posted by Donovan Zoi
I urge anyone browsing or lurking this thread to post their opinion.

As someone who has lurked for a while, but has only got involved with this demogame and is not involved in getting themselves voted into any position, certainly not the judiciary, I have followed this election with interest and sadness.

As a citizen, what I would like to be able to do is to vote for the 3 people I want to be in the judiciary. I had been wondering overnight whether the Moderators could check multi-choice polls, but the discussion has obviously gone way past that while I slept and DZ has already proposed it. A 3 vote multi-choice poll (excess votes eliminated by the Moderators) would seem to be to be the fairest way of doing it. Simply then add up the number of votes each candidate gets, top 3 in, winner is CJ. I don’t think that we need to go to the complication of ranking our choices. The Moderators will have to be involved, but both are unlikely to be running in the same election – and if they are or if you really don’t trust them (and what does that say about the state of affairs) then get a Mod from elsewhere in the Forums or even ask Thunderfall!

I agree with DaveShack that the Charlie situation (the most popular candidate gets left out because he was everyone’s 2nd choice) means the single election for all three doesn’t work as well as hoped. Separate elections for each position – again I agree with DZ’s comments on this one. One possibility (certainly not saying it’s a good one) that nobody’s mentioned yet is a poll for each candidate (ie: 8 candidate, 8 polls) – do you want this candidate to be in the judiciary?, Yes, No, Abstain, again most votes win. You could only vote for each candidate once, but could theoretically vote for them all!

The At-Large Governor I do not see as such a critical affair as before too long they will be replaced by separate elections once the Provinces are formed. Saying that though, if we can have multi-choice poll then that would be better.

My choice for the Judicary would be a 3 vote, multi-choice election.

 

[DaveShack]

Furiey, thanks for your very well stated reply. I say this not because your position happens to agree with mine, but because it looks like we have a new rising star, if you decide to stay active. I look forward to your comments as we get started with the actual game!

 

[zorven]

Originally posted by Donovan Zoi

The other option would be to run noms/elections for three different positions, but there should be no crossover of candidates. In other words, a citizen could only run for one of the three positions. However, this is where an ambitious and very deserving CJ candidate that falls short in his bid would be robbed of any spot on the Judiciary.

The same could be said of Governors. Say there are 3 provinces. A citizen can only run for one of them. If they lose, the are robbed of being governor. Do you propose that we scrap how we do elections for governors?