Idea for quick run-off election

[Man'O'Action]

I'm not sure if this would work well or not, but it might be interesting to try. The Libertarian Party here in the U.S. has occasionally pushed a "second-choice" style of run-off election to bolster support for their free thinking ideas.

In this system of election, a voter would have the option to vote for a maximum of two favorite candidates. This would allow people to vote their conscience and their passion at the same time. Observe...

Example:

Bob = 25 = 42% (Culture Strategy)
Jim = 20 = 33% (War Strategy)
Sally = 14 = 23% (Different Culture Strategy)
Gloria = 1 = 2% (Supports Loser-Wins Scheme)

In this scenario, if Sally and Bob had similar platforms they could both run without fear of splitting the vote. Of course, if you only supported one candidate, like Jim for instance, you can vote only for him and it will not hurt his chances of winning.

Naturally if someone were to adopt a rather ridiculous Loser-Wins Deputy scheme, you could choose not to vote for them at all. Let me know what you think.

The only work would be making sure people voted for a maximum of two candidates.

P.S. All of the names and ideologies in this post are purely fictional and comparisons should not be drawn to actual citizens. Especially not Gloriana and her support of the undemocratic loser-wins scheme.

 

[DaveShack]

We've seen this suggestion before, I can't remember who brought it up. If the forum had this type of poll as a built-in capability it would be really cool. We could use two polls per office per election labelled 1st choice and 2nd choice, and if a citizen really wants Bob to win they could vote for him in both elections. Make the final result vote1+(vote2*0.5).

I'll point out a drawback to this though, if someone gets a very high percentage of the 2nd choice vote but the 1st choice vote is evenly split among other candidates, the 2nd choice will end up winning.

Sue 25% 5%
Bob 25% 5%
Jim 5% 80%
Sally 20% 5%
Tom 25% 5%

Jim would win with 45%, even though only 5% of the people had him as the 1st choice. In the traditional polling method, Sue Bob and Tom would go into a runoff.

 

[Man'O'Action]

Yeah, the double voting for one candidate was something that I was hoping to avoid, otherwise it would devolve to everyone using both their votes on one candidate pretty much the same way they do now.

I don't think multiple polls is the answer. If this was to work it would need to a single multiple-choice poll, otherwise the drawbacks you pointed out would rear their ugly heads.

 

[HG_CassiusA]

For run-off voting that actually works in real life, use the same system the Russians, Ukrainians, and (I think) French use. If no candidate has a clear majority, eliminate all but the top two candidates and vote again.
For example, if the first vote had results like this:
Candidate A: 35%
Candidate B: 14%
Candidate C: 19%
Candidate D: 32%

...then eliminate Candidates B and C and vote between Candidates A and D.

 

[ravensfire]

Something to keep in mind with these systems is time.

Basically, there are 3 stages to elections - nominations, debate and the vote. Previous DG's have held the debate throughout the entire process. We've been using 8 days for the nominations, and 3 days for voting. We've started 8 days before the end of the turn, giving us a bit of space for a run-off.

As you contemplate various systems, also consider the time invovled in them.

-- Ravensfire

 

[DaveShack]

I responded initially with a "how you can vote for two choices", but I have a question about this whole thread. What's the purpose? Is it aimed at the case where two candidates tie and you want to eliminate the time spent on a runoff by having a 2nd vote count as the 2nd choice vote, and the tied candidate with the higher 2nd choice vote wins?

The reality is that most DG elections have either 1 or 2 candidates, so this method and my alternative won't have any effect anyway.

 

[Gloriana]

What a silly (real life) idea, you want to be able to give citizens two votes so they can ease their conscience? In the end only one candidate can win, so what's the use...?
In our case however, we could make it work by indeed having 2 polls, BUT actually consider them as separate polls. How about poll 1 is 'Whom do you want for minister?' and poll 2 is 'Whom do you want for deputy?'. In that case, the winner of poll 1 becomes minister and the winner of poll 2 becomes deputy. People that vote in both polls will not vote for the same person twice, and even IF the same person turns out as winner in both polls, we can always have the runner-up (here we go again) of the second poll become deputy. Or have him appointed in that case, if your undemocratic opinion believes we should do so.

P.S. All of the names and ideologies in this post are purely fictional and comparisons should not be drawn to actual citizens. Especially not Gloriana and her support of the undemocratic loser-wins scheme.

Just to put things in their right perspective here: in real life I'm male, but for all RP intents and purposes here I shall be female. I have no problems with any of you referring to me as either him or her as a result of this confusing situation, just wanted to point out how the situation was.

Oh, and I would never vote for this Gloria person! Who would vote for a supporter of a loser-wins scheme? Luckily my scheme is election by the people rather than undemocratic appointment.

 

[Stilgar08]

The purpose of this would be, as ManOAction pointed out, that by giving people 2 votes it would not split the votes of one "opinion" of how to play and therefore actually reducing chances of this point of view to be voted!
Example (will make it much easier! ):

3 people apply for DP, A, B and C!

While A wants to kick butt and declare war on every neighbour,
B wants pure peace and focus on culture and science
C wants peace but wants to have a balanced strategy on military, science and cultural progress.

The majority of the people want peace but the majority is divided into B and C and this might make A win:

A: 40%
B: 30%
C: 30%

By giving the citizens two votes you ensure not to let the hawk win while the doves have the majority. That's my reason to support this idea... Giving two votes should therefore be possible, but not mandatory, IMO...

OTOH, if DaveShack is right (and I don't doubt that), this is a rather theoretical question...

 

[Man'O'Action]

My friend, the gentleman from Lower Saxony appears to have grasped my idea the best. The possibility of split votes is the motivating factor. If there is confusion about the reasons for this, be sure to check out his post for clarification.

There are three things that will completely torpedo this idea,

One is having two polls which allows voters to vote for the same candidate twice, this will basically put us back where we started and effectively nullifies the second choice idea.

Two is having a second vote, because this removes any benefit that the second choice idea would give. The Honorable Ravensfire is right, time is our motivation against run-offs. We must avoid a second vote which would stretch the process out too far.

Three is telling me the French do something similar.

In our case however, we could make it work by indeed having 2 polls, BUT actually consider them as separate polls. How about poll 1 is 'Whom do you want for minister?' and poll 2 is 'Whom do you want for deputy?'. In that case, the winner of poll 1 becomes minister and the winner of poll 2 becomes deputy.

I don't think deputies need be a part of this. They aren't really central to the proposal. We need to stick with one poll.

I responded initially with a "how you can vote for two choices", but I have a question about this whole thread. What's the purpose? Is it aimed at the case where two candidates tie and you want to eliminate the time spent on a runoff by having a 2nd vote count as the 2nd choice vote, and the tied candidate with the higher 2nd choice vote wins?

The reality is that most DG elections have either 1 or 2 candidates, so this method and my alternative won't have any effect anyway.

Stilgar summed up nicely what the reason for this thread is. Currently if two candidates of the same ideology run against and opposing ideology they run the risk of splitting the vote and losing to something they both oppose.

This style of election is designed to make it easier for third parties to get involved and therefore encourage more participation.

 

[Gloriana]

Thanks for the clarification Stilgar, Man'O, makes it much clearer now and I get the idea, which is actually a quite good one!

Problem is, I THINK (I'm not sure though) you can only put up 'pick one choice' polls and 'multiple choice' polls, without limitations. So we'd have to depend on the honesty of people not to pick more than 2 choices, or leave the poll public so we can check whether someone has not voted more than twice. Am I right in this? Mods?

 

[Man'O'Action]

I think you are definitly right about the multi or single choice polls. I was planning on having them public and needing one of the Secretary's to certify the election by making sure there were no triple votes.

I think it could work with some playtesting.

 

[DaveShack]

I think you are definitly right about the multi or single choice polls. I was planning on having them public and needing one of the Secretary's to certify the election by making sure there were no triple votes.

I think it could work with some playtesting.

No, we've thought about public votes in the past for the purpose of ensuring only registered members vote. One of the core principles of the DemoGame is that votes about specific people, such as elections and confirmation (rejection) polls are private. This also extends to guilt/innocence polls when someone is accused of breaking a rule, and probably to the polls which decide punishment if any.

If we allow parties then that adds even another reason to keep elections private. Public elections would give the party leadership the information it would need to "enforce" its policies, via voter intimidation. Not that we really need another reason to not have public elections, the privacy issue regarding voting for/against an individual should be enough.

Moderators might be able to view individual votes to determine if any ballot contains more than two choices.

I'll go back to my previous question though, with most elections having only two candidates is there sufficient benefit from this proposal to make it worth the trouble?

 

[Man'O'Action]

I'll go back to my previous question though, with most elections having only two candidates is there sufficient benefit from this proposal to make it worth the trouble?

Well I was hoping this would encourage more third party involvement, but with private elections it wouldn't really work.