StarGateWars Forums

I would post this in the voting topic if I could, however I can't. Also, I didn't really want to derail generaloniell's thread on the voting/voting requirements.

Really this a reply to Auriel's Post in the voting thread and I suppose to smooshable.

The way I understand it, each person who can vote simply gets two votes, making the whole 'preference' system rather pointless. The way I remember a preference system works, is that to win the vote, one must receive 50% of the vote (a 'majority').

Initially, each persons first preference is counted. If noone reaches 50% then the candidate with the lowest amount of first preference votes is removed with his/her second preference votes distributed amongst the remaining candidates.

If, after the vote distribution, noone has yet to reach 50% then the now lowest candidates preference are distributed among the remaining candidates. So on and so forth till someone wins.

i.e.

First Preference:

Killtacular: 14 (20.9%)
Pianomutt: 25 (37.2%)
MajorLee: 16 (23.9%)
Draleg: 12 (17.9%)

Total: 67

Second Count: (Dragleg's Votes Distributed)

Killtacular: 23 (34.3%)
Pianomutt: 26 (38.8%)
MajorLee: 18 (26.9%)

Total: 67

Third Count: (MajorLee's Votes Distributed)

Killtacular: 31 (50%)
Pianomutt: 31 (50%)

Total: 62
(MLH/Draleg + Draleg/MLH votes are removed.)

So at the moment it's tied, which I'm not really sure what will happen, either they'll both get it or it'll have to be a re-vote.

Anyway, please tell me if this is wrong and also what the system is you're using? As if I understand Auriel's Post correctly, there's really no need for both a Pianomutt/MajorLee and MajorLee/Pianomutt option as they both count for the exact same thing.

Also, if this is system is correct, then I'm just trying to help people understand the voting system. As it is, MajorLeeHurts has the most 'total' votes, yet currently is not one of the top two.

And
P.S. People should have the option of choosing only one preference.

The connotation that follows from the choice of words 'primary' and 'secondary' should not be taken into account.
There was meant to be no direct distinction between the votes; everyone was supposed to have 2 exclusive votes (i.e. they are all allowed/required to vote twice, but no person can vote for ONE person exclusively, they have to pick 2, whatever their reasons not to wish to do so).

The voting parties are at the moment mistakenly acting on the assumption that their secondary vote is indeed secondary - as in less important - while it is essentially a second vote, no less important than the first.

If there were 3 options - an idea we toyed with too - every single person who voted would have had voted for the winner, eventually (be it the first time, second time, or third time).
The important principle behind the 'second vote' is that it is essentially a tiebreaker.

I really don't think this particular case merits debate.. you don't start changing the rules after distributing the voting ballots, do you?
The whole '2 votes' setup is why the voting options are the way they are.. I wonder how you could explain changing the counting method when voting is in full swing?!


But maybe I am mistaken and do I fail to see the bigger picture.. if that is the case, then please, correct me.


ps. There are indeed too many options.. it would have sufficed to use the following:

- Draleg/Killtacular
- Draleg/MajorLeeHurts
- Draleg/Pianomutt
- Killtacular/MajorLeeHurts
- Killtacular/Pianomutt
- MajorLeeHurts/Pianomutt

pps. You got my example, right?
[spoiler]Imagine this:
Nominees are A, B, C, and D.

Voter 1 votes for A [secondary B].
Voter 2 votes for B [secondary C].
Voter 3 votes for C [secondary D].
Voter 4 votes for D [secondary A].
Voter 5 votes for A [secondary C].
Voter 6 votes for B [secondary D].
Voter 7 votes for B [secondary A].
Voter 8 votes for A [secondary C].
Voter 9 votes for D [secondary B].
Voter 10 votes for D [secondary A].

Counts;
primaries [secondaries]{percentage}
A : 3[3]{30%}
B : 3[2]{25%}
C : 1[3]{20%}
D : 3[2]{25%}

Now if we were to count only the primaries, not only would we have a MASSIVE tie (naturally) but also we'd ultimately use only 30% of the people's votes. Taking the secondaries into account, we reach 60%.[/spoiler]
I don't really see what the problem is.. then again, I may have been blinded from staring at it for too long.

Everyone has 2 exclusive votes. They can vote twice, but on different people only. This is done to hear as many voices as possible. All votes are equal.
I don't really see where you get the whole redistributing thing from, Cycladic.. Could you explain that?
I think you're in error by taking the whole qualitative connotation of primary and secondary along, which really don't count here.

Everyone votes 2 times on 2 different persons.
Total number of votes is 2 times the number of voters.
What you achieve by that is that you hear 2 times as many people as if you only had one category.. but it seems that little gem of maths is lost in translation. All I can say is that I don't understand how people got certain systems in their mind.. or how their respective systems work.

67 voters; 134 votes counted:
Killtacular: 2+9+3+1+8+9 = 32 votes {23.9%}
Pianomutt: 2+1+22+2+5+1 = 33 votes {24.6%}
Draleg: 9+2+3+9+1+2 = 26 votes {19.4%}
MajorLeeHurts: 3+22+8+5+3+2 = 43 votes {32.1%}

Firstly, yes I got your example and if that were the case, then the six options you posted would be all that is needed.

This is where I believe the confusion comes from:
" Killtacular 1st choice || Pianomutt 2nd choice "

I read that as, first preference Killtacular, second preference Pianomutt. You read this as 1 vote for Killtacular, 1 vote for Pianomutt.

As for the preference/redistribution system I'll try and explain it in more detail. In my first post, the initial vote tally counting only first preference votes shows Draleg with the least votes.

Draleg . . . 1st choice || Killtacular 2nd choice [ 9 ]
Draleg . . . 1st choice || Pianomutt 2nd choice [ 1 ]
Draleg . . . 1st choice || MajorLee 2nd choice [ 2 ]

Draleg's 12 votes get redistributed among the remaining three candidates shown under "Second Count." Then as noone had 50% of the vote, MajorLeeHurts votes gets distributed taking us to the tie I showed at the end.

Hopefully that helps.

edit: Btw, this is how I understand (to the best of my knowledge) a preference voting system works. Seeing as this is how I see the vote, it's why I'm trying to explain it as such.

edit: typo

Ahh, now I see.. you see it as having multiple voting rounds with elimination of the least 'favoured' candidate after each round?

Seeing as how everyone has 2 votes, and no one votes for the same person twice, wouldn't you after 3 of your elimination rounds, ALWAYS end up with a tie? Since basically, you throw all votes on 2 piles, namely those of the ones with the highest end result after round 2..
Somehow I think you have to end up with a tie, regardless of how the votes are distributed (unless of course someone does receive over 50% of the votes in any round).


Now I am confused as well. Bah.. and here I thought the system was so clear. I guess I did indeed stare myself blind at it.
Or it is really simple and either one of us has made some minor error somewhere.

edit: I see how you figure this to be a preference system, but with the given options, you HAVE to end up in a tie following your reasoning..
It's good to see your reasoning Cycladic, it's very structured. (Unlike mine.. I slept bad. )

The more complicated the system, the more intriguing the political games played behind the scenes. Complicate a system and the abuse is merely disguised through the smoke and mirrors of it.

Either way:

• The Ombudsmen position is unlikely to ever have the proper support of more than half of the community in practice due to the polarisation of the community and that all non TJP/FUALL are pressed into obscurity/drowned out.
  
  
• The Ombudsmen is more likely to represent one of the major groups essentially giving the position away to whichever plays their user base right (Timing of votes, playing second preferences, holding back votes for the right time, reactivation of older account/players, alliance messages sent to vote for xyz).
  
  
• The Ombudsmen position, neutrality and credibility will be in question no matter which group they are seen to represent/whichever gets in due to their alliance, actions of the alliance and their own actions within it. I.E Darleg being seen as the spin king of OE by them and outsiders/Piano being seen as a traitor by OE etc)

The only real winners in this are the institute and problems the position was created to deal with and regulate. All the fuss, difficulty and bad blood as a result of this election (and what led up to it) is proof enough for that

Rev. Auriel Daniels wrote:edit: I see how you figure this to be a preference system, but with the given options, you HAVE to end up in a tie following your reasoning..
It's good to see your reasoning Cycladic, it's very structured. (Unlike mine.. I slept bad. )

Erm, it doesn't have to end up as a tie, it just is at the moment.

Right now, following my system, we have Killtacular and Pianomutt on the same amount of votes after preferences. If someone new was to vote for either one of them then they would take the lead.

i.e. The vote would now read:
Killtacular: 32 (50.8%)
Pianomutt: 31 (40.2%)

Total: 63
(or vice versa)

Also if, say one of:
" MajorLee . 1st choice || Draleg 2nd choice 4% 4% [ 3 ] "
these votes was for Killtacular/Pianomutt as a second preference, then they would take the lead (as above).

Many different possibilities for either one, or even MajorLeeHurts and (too a lesser extent) Draleg becoming one of the top two. MajorLeeHurts could possibly even win it before it came down to two candidates considering how many 'second preference' votes she has. The problem is they're tied up with Bill, so somewhat unlikely.

Anyway, anything can happen.

edit: Oooh new vote, though it's for Draleg/MajorLee so it doesn't immediately 'affect' this.

As another note, I'm not sure what happens if there are two candidates equal on the lowest amount of votes. Maybe they both get dropped?

edit again:
Now Draleg has overtaken Killtacular in the primary vote, so that throws out my first post. Though, with most MajorLee votes being MLH/Kill it probably means Pianomutt is leading.

Sorry to double post, however smooshable seems to have confirmed it's a preferential voting system.

So the current count should look like,

First Preference:

Killtacular: 15 (18.5%)
Pianomutt: 28 (34.6%)
MajorLee: 22 (27.2%)
Draleg: 16 (19.8%)

Total: 81

Second Count: (Killtacular's votes redistributed)

Pianomutt: 31 (38.3%)
MajorLee: 25 (30.9%)
Draleg: 25 (30.9%)

Total: 81

Here, MajorLee and Draleg are tied on the lowest amount of votes. From what I've read, the easiest/most common/fairest way to split them would be one of two options.

Count backwards one round and see who had the most votes previously.
Count forwards one round to see who will have the most votes next round (shown in the spoiler).

[spoiler]Third Count: (MajorLee's votes redistributed)

Pianomutt: 39 (57.4%)
Draleg: 29 (42.6%)

Total: 68

Third Count: (Draleg's votes redistibuted)

Pianomutt: 32 (51.6%)
MajorLee: 30 (48.4%)

Total: 62[/spoiler]

Seeing as it would be quite easy to get a tie in the first round of votes, I figure the system will be counting forwards. Either way, it's Draleg who gets knocked out so.

Third Count: (Draleg's votes redistibuted)

Pianomutt: 32 (51.6%)
MajorLee: 30 (48.4%)

Total: 62

So Pianomutt is winning at the moment.

Though there is problem with the current poll.

The preferential voting system is based on the fact that by the end of the preference distribution someone will end up with a majority of the vote. In both of the two cases in the spoiler Pianomutt does not, as the needed votes for a majority is 41 (of 81). Most of the votes in both cases get lost due them being votes for both candidates not in the final two.

The problem is you only receive two preferences. For it to be a guaranteed majority to the winner, everyone would need to rank the candidates from 1 to 4.

smooshable wrote:Sorry, I must have not explained it quite correctly to Auriel but Cycladic has hit the nail on the head with his explination. Well done.

smoosh

Sorry Cycladic! *shame*