Runoff elections?

[truckingpete]

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.

 

[Cyc]

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.

 

[Comnenus]

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.

 

[Immortal]

cheetahs plan? it was my idea.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

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.

 

[Immortal]

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?

 

[Donovan Zoi]

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

Care to address my other concerns?

 

[Immortal]

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.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

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.

 

[Comnenus]

cheetahs plan? it was my idea.

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.

 

[Comnenus]

@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.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

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

 

[KCCrusader]

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.

 

[KCCrusader]

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

 

[Immortal]

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.

 

[Chieftess]

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.

 

[Sarevok]

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.

 

[Donovan Zoi]

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!

 

[Cyc]

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.

 

[BCLG100]

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