Popular Vote, run off elections and the plan?

[Ikon]

Dec 31, 2013 17:07:40 GMT -8 Katie Hester said:

As far as US presidential elections being an example of a working system.... 1. It's not a popular vote. You can win the popular vote and still lose the election due to the electoral college. 2. I think we can aim a bit higher than a system that predominately elects rich, white men who speak for what really amounts to a small percentage of the US population.

Um yeah, not what I was saying even in the slightest. The only time in which I mentioned the political system you are referring to I was providing an instance where I voted for the ideal I wanted even knowing that my second choice which I would have been fine with. Yet the second choice did not win the election.

My Comment had Nothing to do rich white men. My point which has been circumnavigated by taking the ONE thing I said about Real world politics which I said I Did Not Want To Bring Into it. I was only reinforcing my point. I was not opening the scope to include what I Do NOT see as a an example of a Working System!

Maybe I wasn't Clear.

Multiple Candidates, especially when many of them have extreme or near extreme platforms dilute the voting pool. Do not reward that. There is nothing in the Charter saying we should get a second chance if the overall approved candidate does not reach 50% The one with the most votes is the Majority. Vote intelligently, not Safely.

[NOMNOMNOM]

I don't think that bringing in Real-World politics is useful or valid at this point, Sheena, as it just distracts from the topic at hand.

That being said, my opinion on this entire issue is that the vote should be run like all other votes have been: whichever option gets the most votes wins.

How fair is that when we have so many candidates? Honestly, I don't care. All of the candidates knew that tossing their hat into the ring could potentially dilute the voting pool, and that's something they should have taken into consideration when they did that.

If that was a situation that they didn't want to happen, then one of the candidates should have either wishdrawn, convinced another candidate to withdraw, or compromised on their platforms and merged as a ticket (one would serve as AST to the other on paper, or however the compromise worked its way out).

Since this DIDN'T happen, however, we have the choice of voting once for one candidate of our choosing, and hoping that enough agree with us for them to win. Period.

The only possible issue I see is if there is a tie, but A) I don't think it's going to happen and B) what happens then should be decided by a consensus

I know this might come off pretty strong, and I don't want to step on anyone, but it had to be said.

[Jeff]

As I previously stated, in the past in HST elections there have been run-offs. This is precedent in the game. Not everyone was around for that, and it hasn't been an issue in the past 5 years. Again, I think the HST candidates should all just agree on the method, as they are the ones running. If all 4 candidates can agree, then there is not the drama of everything else. I think the options have been stated, now we can just have the candidates weigh in.

[Ikon]

Dec 31, 2013 18:12:14 GMT -8 Jeff said:

As I previously stated, in the past in HST elections there have been run-offs. This is precedent in the game. Not everyone was around for that, and it hasn't been an issue in the past 5 years.

There are quite a few precedents in the game. Many of them were void when the charter was made. I don't see how if something was not specifically ruled out by the charter that that means it is allowed by the charter. The charter has system in place to amend it in cases like this. If you want the Precedent to be added to the charter that process should have been started earlier.

Dec 31, 2013 18:12:14 GMT -8 Jeff said:

Again, I think the HST candidates should all just agree on the method, as they are the ones running.

Why does their running outweigh those of us who have to play with the consequences?

Dec 31, 2013 18:12:14 GMT -8 Jeff said:

I think the options have been stated, now we can just have the candidates weigh in.

I have noted a specific absence from all of the HST's for a few days now. I don't think that is a co-incidence. There is a lot of tension here and I think they are all trying to stay impartial.

[Sethron]

Kevin Bryan seems to be speaking with the current staff's authority, waiting on Sabrina to write in a more elegant statement. I don't think that this has the time for a debate-and-choose point, as there are tons of other things people are paying attention to, as well.

It's the Holidays, there's an event up-and-coming, Elections, and Tragedy not too far in the past.

I think we should just go with the solution presented because it was presented and it provides an answer without any more debate. How we each believe we should solve it is fine to discuss, but this was short term (The last HST just announced like a week and a half ago, tops), and therefore needs a fast choice answer. The interrum staff made that decision--they are still the staff we voted in for making these kinds of choices, so let's just roll with it.

I assure you that whatever voting method we use will not cause the game to implode; there are much worse disagreements we have faced.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

As long as there is some, relatively effective and fair system in place, I don't really care. Instant runoffs looked interesting, but I think would add confusion. Ideally I'd say that a candidate should have the support of an actual majority of game. However, all the ways to make this happen each have their own problems.

I do think that any system, if we choose to have runoffs at all, should only come into effect if the victor fails to obtain a majority of game. I don't care if that majority is 51%. That is a majority, no matter how close the next guy was.

[Barnaby Cuthbert]

I agree that a Simple Majority is a Simple Majority.

That is what is called for in the charter, period. Unless the *precise* same number of votes is cast for the two top candidates, I see no reason for a run-off. In that single scenario, which the Charter doesn't cover, that is the only really viable solution unless one of the two top candidates chooses for some reason to step out of the running, which seems unlikely.

[Ikon]

By simple majority do you mean the Candidate that has more votes than any other?

Or do you mean a Candidate that has more than 50% of the vote?

[The Gentleman]

I'mma go ahead and suggest that after this election, we take some time and clarify how elections are supposed to work in the Charter.

[Ascanio Giovanni]

+1 Nick. There are definitely some things that should be brought up in the charter on this subject.

[Jeff]

Yeah, you know, I've fine living with the current staff idea of having a second question on the ballot to see if people want a runoff based on AST Kevin's response back at the start of the thread