PreAmendment Discussion- Election Tie breaking procedure

Aggie · November 22, 2002, 14:09

Ok, obviously we have to decide this issue before the next election, so here's the idea. Lets spend the next 2 weeks hammering out the amedment, then lets vote on it.
Aggie

jdjdjd · November 22, 2002, 14:20

OK, here's my suggestion, actually based on DAVOUT's, posted in sheik's Domestic Minister thread.

1. First tie breaker is Date Registered as listed in the user profile. The most senior member of the website is the winner.

2. As a back up in the strange event both joined the website the same day, then its number of posts/day. Thats listed in parentheses next to the Total Posts in the profile.

These tiebreakers are unbiased and uncontested, and can be viewed and the tie decided in seconds instead of days. And this can apply to all ties, two-way, three-way, and so on.

This gives favoritism to the more senior member, if you do not like that then flip flop the above, then it favors the most active member. Either way these can not be left to human error or influence, as RPS and flip a coin can; or to politicizing the tie breaking as leaving it to Minsters, Presidents or the Court could.

One final note, the tie breakers I suggest make the tie breaking instantaneous.

Randolph · November 22, 2002, 14:32

and my sugestion from the previous thread

Two civs, elimination, tiny map, accelerated production, simultaneous mode

in the rare chance of a tie, why not make it interesting?

realpolitic · November 22, 2002, 15:03

Let's send it to the U.S Supreme Court. We can be sure they're objective.

UnOrthOdOx · November 22, 2002, 15:57

Paper Rock Scissors, or Pick a Number.

I don't feel giving preference to people for post counts or tenure is a fair way to judge an election.

Arnelos · November 22, 2002, 16:25

Whatever we do, the Court SHOULD NOT be given leeway to do whatever they feel like. I respect the current members of the Court, but I also believe that politicizing the Court by allowing them to choose (because nothing is preventing them from it) to VOTE among themselves on a winner would corrupt the Court's impartiality.

I do not want Justices voting, AS THE COURT, to decide elections... it's a perversion of the Court's intended purpose and can easily lead to an erosion of universal respect for the Court. It could also overly politicize the appointment of Justices, something which Apolytonia has been thankfully spared so far...

Having the Court VERIFY a process that it does not control is perfectly fine. Having POLITICAL FIGURES decide the political outcome is fine. They may be partisan and they might pick the side they want to win, but it's more acceptable for them to do so because it doesn't corrupt or pervert a critical element of their position. They can booted out of office by the next term if people didn't like their choice (along with the guy he picked). But having the Court, an explicitly non-political body, delve into making a political decision, WILL have the impact of politicizing the Court. Regardless of who the Court picks, they're making a political decision that will have a negative impact upon respect for the Court from at least some segment of the citizenship (if not most of it)... Regardless of the justification they use for their decision, it's still a POLITICAL decision and, in effect, the final vote in a political election campaign. I'm honestly confused at how the justices fail to see that as potentially dangerous for the Court's impartiality...

jdjdjd · November 22, 2002, 16:45

Quote:

Originally posted by Randolph
and my sugestion from the previous thread

Two civs, elimination, tiny map, accelerated production, simultaneous mode

in the rare chance of a tie, why not make it interesting?

Randolph, Oh, I was wondering what you meant the first time through....let them play the game. That would be pretty cool...can they get a game done PBEM with a couple of days, though?

Un, we have to reward someone, so why not someone who is more active or more senior, in the rare case of a tie? why would it have to be completely random? so long as its not political or a decision by one or several people, using posts/day and register date is set in stone at the time of the closing of the poll and can immediately determine the winner.

UnOrthOdOx · November 22, 2002, 17:15

I just don't like it. Can't put it in words, it just doesn't feel right to me. The 'tiebreaker' would be known even before elecitons, I could see where that may discourage a newer member, or a member that is one of the infamous lurkers, to not run when they otherwise would.

I ask you, what is wrong with it being random? Put it in the hands of the almighty Banana.

btw, it is a very good concept to have them play an elimination PTW game, but not feasible. Not everyone even has PTW, let alone a highspeed connection to play simultaneous turns. Love the idea otherwise, though.

joncnunn · November 22, 2002, 17:24

How about the automatic tiebreaker beeing who ever has writen the FEWEST posts?

(This would give new people an edge)

notyoueither · November 22, 2002, 17:58

I agree with Arnelos, and UnOrthO.

Specify the tie is to be broken by a contest based on chance. The court can supervise and announce the winner.

It is simple. It is quick (relatively). It would be done.

notyoueither · November 22, 2002, 18:02

The only question remaining would be whether it is preferred that the court first total the number of registered citizen votes to see if, in fact, the rightful electors had made a decision.

DAVOUT · November 22, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
I just don't like it. Can't put it in words, it just doesn't feel right to me. The 'tiebreaker' would be known even before elecitons, I could see where that may discourage a newer member, or a member that is one of the infamous lurkers, to not run when they otherwise would.

I ask you, what is wrong with it being random? Put it in the hands of the almighty Banana.

You, a journalist, you cannot put in words something that does not feel right to you ! I am really puzzled.

As for the argument regarding the new members, it does not hold water, particularly when the tie braker will be written in the law.

The only serious argument is that the democracy can not make decision based on random choice. Any pre-establish criteria is better than a random choice; democracy is not foot-ball, but even in foot-ball, after a draw, the winner is not chosen at random.

civman2000 · November 22, 2002, 18:40

Quote:

Originally posted by Randolph
and my sugestion from the previous thread

Two civs, elimination, tiny map, accelerated production, simultaneous mode

in the rare chance of a tie, why not make it interesting?

Sounds good. So they don't have to play the whole game and possibly take forever, we should see whose score is highest in 1000 BC.

notyoueither · November 22, 2002, 18:40

A shoot out is fairly random...

civman2000 · November 22, 2002, 18:48

Yes, but it's the only idea that directly involves skill rather than just chance or seniority or other such things.

Sheik · November 22, 2002, 20:09

The best score idea is interesting.

However as a judge I have to say that The Court should first be able to look at the voter list to determine if there was a true winner. If the election is still a tie then we could do the highest score.

Or maybe we should let The Court decide if they want to first see the voter list or just go straight to the game of civ.

jdjdjd · November 23, 2002, 12:22

DAVOUT makes a good point with regards to tiebreakers...even in football, at the close of the season two tied teams know who the winner will be based on the tiebreaking system they have which is not based on random chance except in the odd chance that all the other tiebreakers also end in ties.

We could add a third to our list and make the last tie breaker as RPS.

The problem with random is that RPS or shooting it out or picking a number are subject to human error or fixing whether doing over the internet or in person. Even if monitored by the Court, whose to say that members of the Court won't cheat for another member. And if they play a game against each other, how do you know that one player won't play ahead or cheat?

As for checking voter records, I say there is no need. Its a waste of time. Many people do not want the Court or anyone to know how they voted or whether they voted. And, members of the Court are human, and what do we have to guarantee they do not leak out details of the voting records?

I'm not sure why anyone would argue with having instantaneous tiebreakers that can not be influenced by anyone inside the game?

Oh yeah, BTW, this is still just a game. Let the game be played without unnecessary delay. Using the instantaneous tiebreakers I mentioned above would do just that.

E_T · November 23, 2002, 13:54

Quote:

Originally posted by notyoueither
A shoot out is fairly random...

M-203's at 50 Yards....

E_T

Sheik · November 23, 2002, 17:26

Quote:

how do you know that one player won't play ahead or cheat?

You don't. You just have to have faith and trust people to do the right thing. We never know if anyone is playing ahead in this game and we just have to trust them not to.

Arnelos · November 23, 2002, 18:52

Why not Russian Roulette?

Panzer32 · November 29, 2002, 19:53

I think the ammendment discussion sort of petered out...

E_T · December 5, 2002, 13:50

With the Term end Rapidly approching and the new elections looming, we need to try to get this discussion restarted.

So, how DO we want to break a possible tie, that would be fair and equivical towards everybody?

E_T

Hot Mustard · December 5, 2002, 14:31

RPS!

jdjdjd · December 5, 2002, 21:26

Refer back to my initial post

Kloreep · December 6, 2002, 01:02

RPS.

notyoueither · December 6, 2002, 02:05

I am positive the court is completely aware of the wishes of the people who have spoken.

Something quick. Something unbiased.

In the event that another tie occurs (how likely is that?) I am sure we will see a different result.