Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 23, 2008 12:02:15 GMT -6
Seems fine to me too. This gives everyone a shot.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 12:20:15 GMT -6
Seems fine to me too. This gives everyone a shot. How does everyone not have a shot now?
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 12:32:41 GMT -6
Good point. I would suggest an odd form IRV vote in that case. Here's what I'm thinking:
Let's say A gets 300 points B gets 300 points C gets 300 points D gets 200 points
Now we take A, B, and C and see who had the most rankings of 0. Let's say C had the most. Now we can just have a majority vote between A and B to see who gets the seat. If B and C had an equal number of rankings of 0, than A would have been declared the winner. In the really unlikely event that all three had the same number of points and the same number of rankings of 0, than the person who had the most votes under 5 would be cast out, then the person who had the most votes under 7.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 12:43:50 GMT -6
(psst.... look at your letters again...poor Candidate D just got screwed.)
So, instead of Candidate A, B, OR C .... (should there ever be 3 candidates) ...
We won't vote for our favorite, we'll vote for a big math problem ?
Btw, what error is this addressing ? I didn't see a controversy in the last 2+ years of anyone being unfairly able to get an Senatorial Office. Is there some wrong being righted here?
Or is this fixing something that isn't broke?
I ask, because I am very hesitant to muck around with the OrgLaw, if not needed.
|
|
Xhorxh Asmour
Talossan since 02-21-2003
Wot? Me, worry?
Posts: 1,754
|
Post by Xhorxh Asmour on Dec 23, 2008 12:55:55 GMT -6
I oppose giving two candidates the same number of points
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 12:57:38 GMT -6
Whoops! My bad, that should say D instead of C.
Actually, we are still voting for our favorite. The candidate who has the most votes of "0" is most people's least favorite, right? Therefore, in the event of a tie, the person who has the most votes of "0" is the people's least favorite. The candidate who has many votes of 1 or 3 or 2 is also not many people's favorite; the person who has less votes lower than 5 is more liked because less votes lower than 5 means more votes of 5 and up. If a candidate gets more votes higher on the scale than he is more of a favorite with more people, right?
This is simply preparing for a very near future where provinces are a little bigger (say, 40 people each) and more candidates will want to put their names in for a vote. But yes, you could say that this happened before in Talossa. Let us take the example of the recent senate election in Cézembre. The original race was between myself, Ian da Bitour, and Xhorxh Pol Briga. Now, XPB and myself belong to the same party, and share many of the same beliefs, so, I knew if I kept myself in the race S:reu da Bitour would win instead of my party-member XPB because the vote would probably be (evenly or unevenly) split between him and myself. So, I pulled out of that race, which, perhaps was a foolish ambition in the first place, so that S:reu XPB would have a better chance. In that very same race another person (who I won't mention the name of) wanted to run, but knew that he would also do damage to XPB if he ran; something he did not want to do. So he did not run. I don't, however, want anyone to get the impression that I'm doing this because I'm sore that I didn't get to run in that race. I'm not. So... ya know, don't say that I'm only doing this because of that.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 13:04:07 GMT -6
I oppose giving two candidates the same number of points No, no, no! This is the beauty of the system. Let me show you what is wrong with not being allowed to give 2 candidates the same ranking: Let's say Citizen A votes a 10 for Nader (he really likes Nader) and a 9 for Gore (because he still doesn't want Bush to win) and a 0 for Bush. Now 9 other citizens do this. Citizen B votes a 0 for Gore, a 10 for Bush, and a 7 for Buchanan. 19 other citizens do this as well. Citizen C votes a 9 for Nader, a 10 for Gore, and a 0 for Bush. 9 other citizens do this as well. In this situation, Bush beats Gore simply because the citizen A group couldn't rank Gore as a 10 because they had already ranked Nader as a ten. If they had been able to rank them both as a 10 than Gore would have won. You see?
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 13:12:27 GMT -6
Now, had you begun this Amendment with as much thought as you have given it in the past 4 hours, I would have been so quick to critique.
Brevity may be the soul of wit, but it is not the Soul of Witt best way to write an Amendment.
When you are suggesting making a major overhaul to the very structure of our Kingdom, you must tread carefully.
I still don't agree with it, because I don't like beauty pageants or carnival games. I like yes or no, black or white, nuts or no nuts.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 13:15:17 GMT -6
I don't think so. This is just making senatorial elections fairer. I'm not calling for a change to the structure of the senate, the powers of the senate, or who's eligible to be elected to the senate.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 13:24:25 GMT -6
But you are changing how the Senators get there. So you are changing the way they are going to run.
Instead of being the Best Candidate, they are now going to run as the Least Objectionable Candidate.
You are watering down the Senate, in my opinion. Which changes the Kingdom.
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 23, 2008 13:24:34 GMT -6
Seems fine to me too. This gives everyone a shot. How does everyone not have a shot now? Because now a vote for one candidate is essentially a vote against another. With this proposed system, even if a voter's first choice isn't chosen, their next choice or choices would.
|
|
Capt. Sir Mick Preston
Capitán of the Zouaves
Posts: 6,511
Talossan Since: 9-21-2006
Knight Since: 10-12-2010
Motto: Cuimhnichibh air na daoine bho'n d'thainig sibh
|
Post by Capt. Sir Mick Preston on Dec 23, 2008 13:27:48 GMT -6
How does everyone not have a shot now? Because now a vote for one candidate is essentially a vote against another. With this proposed system, even if a voter's first choice isn't chosen, their next choice or choices would. So, it's the "anybody but that guy" candidate?
|
|
Flip Molinar
Talossan since 1-1-2008
Proud Talossan
Posts: 1,592
|
Post by Flip Molinar on Dec 23, 2008 13:32:00 GMT -6
yes which is better than denying all other candidates.
|
|
Sir C. M. Siervicül
Posts: 9,636
Talossan Since: 8-13-2005
Knight Since: 7-28-2007
Motto: Nonnisi Deo serviendum
|
Post by Sir C. M. Siervicül on Dec 23, 2008 13:32:16 GMT -6
Let's say Citizen A votes a 10 for Nader (he really likes Nader) and a 9 for Gore (because he still doesn't want Bush to win) and a 0 for Bush. Now 9 other citizens do this. Citizen B votes a 0 for Gore, a 10 for Bush, and a 7 for Buchanan. 19 other citizens do this as well. Citizen C votes a 9 for Nader, a 10 for Gore, and a 0 for Bush. 9 other citizens do this as well. In this situation, Bush beats Gore simply because the citizen A group couldn't rank Gore as a 10 because they had already ranked Nader as a ten. If they had been able to rank them both as a 10 than Gore would have won. You see? Don't Bush and Gore tie in this scenario? Each gets a score of 10 from 20 voters and a score of 0 from the other 20. I reckon that to be 200 points each. 140 for Buchanan, and 190 for Nader. Actually it's a three-way tie if the citizen C voters realize that they too can pull the same trick as the citizen A group and give 10 points each to both of the guys they like. And a four-way tie if the citizen B group figures out the same tactic and maxes out Buchanan's score (since they all presumably like Buchanan more than Gore or Nader). Then we can bring in Roibeard's idea and choose randomly from among all the candidates in the election.
|
|
|
Post by Dréu Gavárþic'h on Dec 23, 2008 13:38:52 GMT -6
oh... my bad... I messed up the situation. I meant for it to be so that Bush got 21 people to do that, so if Gore had gotten even one more ten he would have one.
|
|