Runoff elections?

[mhcarver]

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

 

[ravensfire]

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

 

[eyrei]

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.

 

[Espírito]

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.

 

[Comnenus]

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.

 

[Espírito]

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

 

[gert-janl]

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?

 

[Espírito]

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.

 

[gert-janl]

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!

 

[zorven]

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.

 

[Espírito]

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.

 

[Comnenus]

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.

 

[Espírito]

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...

 

[Black_Hole]

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

 

[Comnenus]

One person, one vote, one time.

 

[mhcarver]

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

 

[truckingpete]

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

 

[eyrei]

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...

 

[Espírito]

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.

 

[Comnenus]

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.