The First Commissioner - Page 2

AdamTG02 · August 8, 2002, 17:24

High Commisioner was what I at one time proposed to call the officer we are now calling Commissioner... so it's a good idea to have that person break ties in the other elections, but it won't work for this one.

One thing I'd like to call attention to is not the fact that the vote is deadlocked, but the large majorities in favor of specific provisions. 2/3 of cast votes favor a Commissioner who supports Democracy. 2/3 of cast votes favor a Commissioner who takes a hard line on atrocities.

So really, we agree on more issues than it seems.

DeathByTheSword · August 8, 2002, 17:28

adam> hard line on atrocities you mean do not use or use?

We all have some thing that are the same but there still some thing that are the direct counter for eachother (couldnt find the right english word

)

AdamTG02 · August 8, 2002, 17:31

I meant a hard line against atrocities. Sorry for the confusion.

Pandemoniak · August 8, 2002, 17:42

9/9/9 until now... Argh, its tied

Method · August 8, 2002, 18:01

wow! its a lot tighter than i thought it'd be!

Maniac · August 9, 2002, 07:27

Wow! DBTS in the lead. It seems many non-party related citizens support us.

Leland · August 9, 2002, 07:33

I propose that in case of a tie, we'll have a quick poll (say, open for 1 day) between the contestants. Another alternative would be to ask someone non-affiliated to pick one randomly (that's how they do it in the civilized world).

Some people are against choosing a commissioner at all. I disagree... the parties don't really have to be in place because the first commissioner's job doesn't include many things that have anything to do with party politics. This is more like a practise run for the actual elections that will be held in a couple of weeks.

EDIT: Those citizens who haven't voted yet, please break the tie!

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 07:58

I believe that a quick poll will not be so democratic because not every body checks the forum every day (i am checking it every hours but that besides the point

)

FlameFlash · August 9, 2002, 11:23

Going to agree with DBTS on that one... if there has to be a run-off then it'll need to be the same official length of time.

Leland · August 9, 2002, 12:00

I stand corrected. But what if the run-off election is also a tie?

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 12:06

One thing I must ask here, will this be a preferential voting system, or a "first-past-the-post" system? Preferential voting, while perhaps needing more effort to pull off, would seem a more fair system.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 12:06

THEN an sudden deatch chat or something!

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 12:08

archaic> for the not speaking english people>

(atleast i am)

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 12:20

Preferential Voting = More Fair than "first-past-the-post Voting (The system we appear to be using.)

Basically, starting from the canditate with the lowest votes, people who voted for that canditate get to revote, choosing from the remaining canditates. Repeat until there's only 2 canditates, one of whom should have more than the other. (In the event of any ties in the process, the canditate who had more of the primary vote (ie. The one with the higher vote total in the original vote) wins. If the tie is with the two lowest placed canditates in the first vote, they both get their votes redistributed that round.)

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 12:51

Quote:

Originally posted by Archaic
Preferential Voting = More Fair than "first-past-the-post Voting (The system we appear to be using.)

Basically, starting from the canditate with the lowest votes, people who voted for that canditate get to revote, choosing from the remaining canditates. Repeat until there's only 2 canditates, one of whom should have more than the other. (In the event of any ties in the process, the canditate who had more of the primary vote (ie. The one with the higher vote total in the original vote) wins. If the tie is with the two lowest placed canditates in the first vote, they both get their votes redistributed that round.)

I agree with this process of voting, it does make things more fair. But as has been said before, the first Commissioner will not actually be playing the game, rather they will organize it in preparation for September (when we hope to get started), and it is my understanding that there will be another election at that time. So I believe it to be in our best interest in this case just to speed things up to leave the voting as it is.

Voltaire · August 9, 2002, 12:51

***Sorry, double post.***

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 13:13

i like the system but first everybody has to post on who they voted (not very democratic because this thing have to be kept private) and it will take for ever

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 13:18

Not necessarily. If we had a neutral CMN able to collect and tally votes through PM's/emails, then it would be possible to conduct the vote through everyone sending 1 PM/email to this person with their list of preferences in order from first to last, and the CMN can do all the maths from there without having to go back and get the preferences from those who've voted for losing canditates.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 13:29

good idea but then we need yet another person to do that, i mean every day there are getting more jobs and less people to fill them.....there also have been talks about governers for every 8 cities.....! it`s getting bigger and bigger every day

btw we still need 20 or so votes for 100% upcome. only 30 of the 54 votes then 55.6% of the people voted

Archaic · August 9, 2002, 13:31

Well, thankfully, we don't need to look for the neutral CMN from inside people doing this Demo. Game. (Hell, if we did, that would defeat the purpose of having a nautral person.) We'd be better off asking an Admin, Mod, or perhaps someone in the Civ3 Demo game.

Leland · August 9, 2002, 14:00

There's one big plus with regular elections: we can use forum polls to conduct them. Much lower threshold for voting, in my opinion. This is just a game and is supposed to be fun after all... Besides how many democratic systems in the real world are perfectly fair?

AdamTG02 · August 9, 2002, 14:49

I don't see the need for voting through PMs.

If we simply held another poll with only the top 2 (or however many) candidates, those who voted for those candidates before would vote for them again, and those who voted for the other candidate would split their votes according to which of the top 2 they preferred.

While I've used PM voting productively in party votes, I don't think there's a need for it for community elections.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 14:55

but what if the second election is a draw? again ! (but i agree with normal voting!)

Kassiopeia · August 9, 2002, 16:00

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
If we simply held another poll with only the top 2 (or however many) candidates, those who voted for those candidates before would vote for them again, and those who voted for the other candidate would split their votes according to which of the top 2 they preferred.

Seconded.

Method · August 9, 2002, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Kassiopeia

Seconded.

Thirded (

)

Kassiopeia · August 9, 2002, 16:38

The seconding of someone else's seconding is not thirding; you should restrict to seconding the original proposal.

DeathByTheSword · August 9, 2002, 16:39

or just seconding the seconding of the orginal post

Method · August 9, 2002, 17:05

whatever you call it, i think i got my point across

Juliennew · August 9, 2002, 17:35

Quote:

If we simply held another poll with only the top 2 (or however many) candidates, those who voted for those candidates before would vote for them again, and those who voted for the other candidate would split their votes according to which of the top 2 they preferred.

I agree

Tactical Marine · August 9, 2002, 18:23

Quote:

Originally posted by AdamTG02
I don't see the need for voting through PMs.

If we simply held another poll with only the top 2 (or however many) candidates, those who voted for those candidates before would vote for them again, and those who voted for the other candidate would split their votes according to which of the top 2 they preferred.

While I've used PM voting productively in party votes, I don't think there's a need for it for community elections.

Sounds like an excellent idea.