1BC Civ Forums / Civilization IV Discussion / 1BC CivIV BTS Multi Team Battle / Town Square / Dgame Archive / Upcoming Elections / Latest Posts

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 17:14:44 GMT

Mr. Mongoose, if you permit, I have moved this topic out of the Campaign board - the SC elections are over and the discussion on how to elect the Senate has moved to the SC board.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zone — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 14:29:02 GMT

[quote]There's a problem with off-site polls; unless we link databases somehow (which is a major pain in the neck), there's no way to prevent non-citizens from voting. Our current Voting Booth is accessible by signed-up citizens only, and I would not want to let that security go.[/quote]Indeed, but only people who can access this area would be aware of it or be able to find it. Then again, if it IS based on another forum site rather than a free online poll system, then it's easy enough to make that secure too.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 13:13:02 GMT

[quote]I hadn't considered that, to be honest - and it is a good point to make. If this can be solved technically, it certainly should. In the interim, we might create a law to make such actions illegal.[/quote]

If it can be solved techincally, that is great, if not, so be it. We can make it illegal, but it would be a difficult thing to enforce. There's the whole honour system thing, which works for some but not for others! :)

[quote]There's a problem with off-site polls; unless we link databases somehow (which is a major pain in the neck), there's no way to prevent non-citizens from voting. Our current Voting Booth is accessible by signed-up citizens only, and I would not want to let that security go.[/quote]

Right! I agree. If we can do it here, by all means. Lets do it here.

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:57:31 GMT

I hadn't considered that, to be honest - and it is a good point to make. If this can be solved technically, it certainly should. In the interim, we might create a law to make such actions illegal.

There's a problem with off-site polls; unless we link databases somehow (which is a major pain in the neck), there's no way to prevent non-citizens from voting. Our current Voting Booth is accessible by signed-up citizens only, and I would not want to let that security go.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 12:29:09 GMT

[quote]If people can get their hands on the current poll result, then so be it - as has been said here, think of it as an exit poll. I personally see no great harm in it.[/quote]

With all due respect sir, I have to disagree. I do not think the exit polls is a valid comparison either. Anywhere I've ever voted, exit poll information isn't making news until the end of the day, after the polls have been closed, before the votes have been tallied.

Listen, you use the example of it not being quite right that if greater than 50 percent comprise a certain group that they can control the Senate outright. Well if you want to make that argument, you must also consider the fact that if people can check the results of the election before the polls have closed, there is a greater risk of, shall we call it "voter fraud" that certain groups can withhold their votes monitor the progress of the election and then swing it whatever way they desire with a rush of last minute voting based on the results. An extreme example to be sure, but I can envision a sort of "voting mafia" controlling the outcome of the elections as they please.

I don't like it, and I would like to request an investigation by the admin or moderators to determine if the polls can be moderated so that you can not view the results until after you vote.

It is the fairest way to do it, if it is allowed.

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Mon, 12 Mar 2007 04:26:54 GMT

Fair point Zig.

If people can get their hands on the current poll result, then so be it - as has been said here, think of it as an exit poll. I personally see no great harm in it.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zigeuner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 17:36:21 GMT

[quote]It is a presumption that there will be a lot of PMing going around. It's been my experience that there isn't in D-game polls, any limited discussion about the results tend to be limited to the political parties.[/quote]Sounds like a good one for the VS thread: presumption vs testimonial :P

I'll just go with the flow, instead of trying to be the flow... One suggestion though, if there's going to be weird rules (hey, you can look at the election outcome so far, but you really can't) I want such to be clearly stressed on the poll page itself. Same as a huge warning in red capitals above every .sav that is put up. Not everybody has aspirations to read everything all the time, and it would be a pity if only hardcore citizens understood what is expected of them...[/superfluous]

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zone — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 16:45:07 GMT

I agree with your edited ocmment Bis, that's why I put "I know holding the elections on another site is not ideal," in the original suggestion.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 15:02:34 GMT

Yeah, I just got done reading your reply in the SC. You raised a interesting point... but I'm still not sold on Option #1 over #3.

I'll go ahead and edit my above reply in that respect. :P

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:55:12 GMT

I agree with Zone. In the grander scheme of things does it really matter much to anyone or anything if we hold the polls off site? Really? Especially if that site happens to be a 1bc Refugee site that exists today for among other reasons 1bc would not allow us to have D-games for a time in its history....

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zone — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:52:30 GMT

[quote]Geez, maybe the whole thing should be renamed and moved over then...[/quote]Come off it, I'm not suggesting anything of the sort, it just makes sense to have polls that ARE ideal rather than not using them and using the 'least imperfect' soloution where the ideal option isn't available.

Unless Sean would like to code such a thing...

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:39:06 GMT

[quote]In maniacalmonkey's words... "it's the least imperfect".[/quote]

I'm afraid I'm tracking back on that one - I've just realised that a political block with 51% or more of the People behind it could exploit this system to sweep the elections and claim all Senate seats. The same goes for most of the other options. I need to think on this for a bit.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Bismarck2990 — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 14:29:13 GMT

Not that I'm against implementing that idea (if it was wanted).. it's just I could see why some would resent the idea. Its like employees at one office, having to go next door to another office, to use their printer. PM ballots are unpopular, honor codes are ever more vulnerable to manipulation then the PM ballots... and I'm just going to say I like option 3 in VonC's post here and in the Supreme Court.

**edited

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:32:33 GMT

It is a presumption that there will be a lot of PMing going around. It's been my experience that there isn't in D-game polls, any limited discussion about the results tend to be limited to the political parties.

I still don't like the idea of being able to see the results of the election before you vote.

Zone, you know I'm quite keen to your idea of offsite polling, but hell, I suggested that when we were having problems at Civilized. And it still baffles me to this day why it is so much of a hassle to click on a different link and do the polling. Some things I will never understand. :w00t:

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zigeuner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 13:15:06 GMT

Geez, maybe the whole thing should be renamed and moved over then...

As long as the results are visible to [i]anyone[/i] you can consider them visible to all, with all the pm-ing that's going on. Just consider it the equivalent to exit polls.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zone — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 09:49:22 GMT

Are most members here not part of Civilized anyway? If not, then it's not hard to register. I know holding the elections on another site is not ideal, but at least the poll is easy to set up and can be done in the fairest way, even nulling your vote if you look at the results before you vote. Also, one of the Judges is an admin over there and would easily spot foul play (not that I believe anyone here would). It would be easy enough to set up a seperate forum to hold all polls such as this.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 03:14:04 GMT

You can look at the poll results before you vote?

That should not be allowed. I like that option even less than Honourable Judge vonClausewitz likes the voting by PM option...

If possible, the option to view poll results before voting should be disabled.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Zigeuner — Sun, 11 Mar 2007 00:08:02 GMT

[quote]1. Candidates run for Senator - in this option, all candidates are listed in a single poll, and the top 5 are made Senator. [b]The problem that has been raised with this one is due to the fairly low number of Citizens the DGame has at this moment - we may end up with only two or three Senators actually getting votes.[/b] If that should happen, there should be "tie breaker" elections for the other candidates, which prolongs the process. In my opinion, however, this is the most democratic system.[/quote]
This discussion is silly. The poll outcome is plain for all to see, so if Senators 2, 4, and 7 have a clear majority I'm not going to vote for any of them, am I? I'll vote for another candidate entirely...

RE: Upcoming Elections

von Clausewitz — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:52:09 GMT

It depends on the number of candidates. I like one if there are 6 candidates but not more then that, and there are two others that could work if there are more then that.

RE: Upcoming Elections

jerm — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 23:35:46 GMT

I'd agree except I'd prioritize it (1), (3), (2), (4). That's almost irrelevant though since I'm not too keen on the PM voting either. So which of the above options would you favor the most Your Honor?

RE: Upcoming Elections

von Clausewitz — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 17:39:55 GMT

1. Candidates run for Senator

Nearly impossible to get 5 Senators elected by a majority on the first ballot this way. What we will end up having is #7 (see below).

2. Candidates run randomly opposed

It could put the two most popular candidates against each other while letting the least popular candidate slide into a position unopposed.

3. Candidates run for specific seats

Announcing a campaign becomes a strategy as the timing becomes a factor.

4. Candidates run as parties

The only way that it works is if the winning party has 5 candidates, other wise we have as many or more run off polls then any other option. Anyone think voting in a single party is a good thing?

5. Vote for Composition

The only way to get the 5 most popular candidates into the Senate on the first ballot. It has the highest possibility for voter confusion. The poll options would start at 6 for 6 candidates and increase exponentially from there.

6. Vote for Composition by PM Ballot

This should not even be an option. I would prefer any other option ahead of this. Voting by PM removes all concept of the anonymous secret ballot.

7. Have a poll for each Senate seat, sequentially.

At 72 hours per poll, excluding weekends, we are looking at 3 weeks. The good side is that we get the most popular candidates.

8. Have one poll for each candidate with one tick box in the poll; basically a confidence/no-confidence poll.

The 'thumbs up/thumbs down' for each candidate works ideally if each voter only gives a thumbs up to 5 candidates. That is difficult to enforce. The voter census thread is useful for enforcement but can reduce the concept of the anonymous secret ballot for the first few voters.

My priorities for the election would be (1) fair elections (2) anonymous voting (3) getting it done on the first ballot (4) getting the most popular candidates into office. My intent with these priorities is that the voters and citizens are most important and there should be no action that would lead to alienation of the voters. Respect to the candidates needs to be considered but shouldn't be done to the detriment of the voters.

RE: Upcoming Elections

jerm — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 16:45:50 GMT

The major issues for Dgame elections and even the legislative process are twofold. (while this may be unpopular) I believe that keeping a steady pace is the most important issue for a Dgame. Ensuring that it is the most democratic, I believe comes secondary. Elections should be processed as quickly as possible with the fewest amount of beaurocratic steps involved. I would not have stated this when I first joined the 2nd 1BC Dgame (yeah, I know it wasn't really 1BC but that's not the point). Things got so hung up on procedure that the game just kind of fizzled. The current Civilzed Dgame has enjoyed a decent and most importantly consistant pace for the entirety of the game. Here is an example of the latest Senate poll. I don't know if we can do it that way though.

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 14:54:26 GMT

I do see the merit in option 8, even if it is a little cruel to ask people to not only vote *for* their favorite candidates, but also *against* those they'd rather not see in the Senate - and, as said, a bit harsh on the candidates' sensitivities too, but that's politics for you.

As for ties, and how to break them, I'd rather not give that power to any office, because until we get more than a couple of dozen voting citizens aboard, ties are actually fairly likely to occur, and a tie-breaker vote could represent a significant amount of political clout to whoever holds it.

In case of a tie, it might actually be acceptable to introduce chance - the people, after all, have freely spoken on all the candidates, so that part of the democratic requirement has been fulfilled. Transparency is an issue, but I'm pretty sure there are random number generators on the net which can store a result for all to see, or something smart like that.

Oh, and as for individual constituencies - I did not mean to imply that having more votes should give you more power, as all the Senators (with the exception of the Princeps) are considered equal by the Constitution, but I do think that knowing who has what levels of popular support is an important bit of information within a democracy.

RE: Upcoming Elections

Scipio Africanus — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 11:46:40 GMT

[quote][b]maniacalmonkey (3/10/2007)[/b][hr]An unexpectedly spiky issue, this one. Let's review our options.

[b]1. Candidates run for Senator[/b] - prolongs the process. In my opinion, however, this is the most democratic system. [/quote]

I agree on first clause, but disagree on second. See below

[quote] [b]2. Candidates run randomly opposed[/b] - . . . I feel that this undermines the influence of the People, and hence the democratic aspect of Senate elections.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote] [b]3. Candidates run for specific seats[/b] - this would necessitate five polls (one for each seat) with candidates allowed to run for only one of them. The problem here is that it makes the time at which a candidate announces his intention a factor. Getting in early allows you to go for an unopposed seat - getting in late allows you to pick your opponent. Again, this introduces a factor other than popular support to the equation, undermining the direct influence of the People.[/quote]

This is the closest to what I think would work best, but see below.

[quote] [b]4. Candidates run as parties[/b] - . . . with only five seats to distribute, we may very quickly run into ties and such.[/quote]

Agreed, this adds complications that are unnecessary.

[quote] - I think that democratic elections should be focussed on getting the most popular candidates into the Senate, based on citizen votes. Introducing any other factor (like chance, or timing) into the process, in my opinion, undermines this and should be avoided if possible.[/quote]

I agree.

[quote] 5. Vote for Composition - The problem here is one of scale - [/quote]

I agree.

[quote] 6. Vote for Composition by PM Ballot - . . .creating a significant risk of fraud, whether deliberate or accidental. [/quote]

Agreed

There are two other possible solutions. One of which would be quite laborious and time consuming. One of which would be much quicker and easier, but might be a bit more hard on the feelings of candidates?

(7) Have a poll for each Senate seat, sequentially. Seat one is open for 48 or 72 hours with all candidates listed as possible Senators. Everyone gets a chance to cast ONE vote in this poll until it is closed down, and the winner of Senate seat one is determined.

Next, the poll for Senate seat two is opened, and every eligible canddiate, except the winner of seat one is listed as a candidate. Same procedure.

Repeat ad infinitum. I realize that with Senate seats reopening every few turns, this one would be prohibitively laborious.

(8) Have one poll for each candidate with one tick box in the poll; basically a confidence/no-confidence poll. Basically, casting a vote for a candidate in this format simply equates with casting a vote that you think they are worthy of a Senate seat, not any specific seat. Anyone in the DGame can "vote" for any of the candidates, but obviously can only vote once for each candidate. Every candidate's poll opens up at the same time, and is open for the same period of time (72 hours or whatever). Once time has elapsed, the total number of votes each candidate has received are examined. Those who got the highest number win the seats.

If there are intended to be specific representational constituencies of some sort, then the winner of the largest fraction of confidence votes gets allocated the seat that has the largest constituency, the next most "popular" gets the next biggest seat and so on.

The problems that option (8) might present is that, it is possible that (a) everyone in the DGame will vote for every candidate, and there will then be too many winners, or (b) only a couple of candidates will get any votes! and thus, only a few of the seats will be filled by representation. However, note that, both of these "quandries" woudl represent the most "democratic" outcomes in that, the quandries would reflect the will of the people. This is not an uncommon problem in realworld democracies (witness historic American voter turnout below 50%). Also, who cares if everyone who wants to run for Senate wins? Is it really necessary that it be limited to only 5 or 7 seats? (however many it is). If 9 candidates want to run, and all nine get 100% support from the electorate, then why not simply have NINE SEATS!? :P

The solution to both of these quandries would be that the Supreme Court solves them. If (a), the Supreme Court could simple roll a dice and randomly exclude candidates through elimination, else decide based on their own expert opinions who is most meritorious. If a tie-breaker is needed, the President could provide the third vote in this.

If (b), the Senate likewise can either randomly or democratically choose among the remaining candidates who got zero votes.

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 07:30:51 GMT

Forgot a couple:

[b]5. Vote for Composition[/b] - similar to the way the Supreme Court is being elected right now, the People vote for the distribution of seats they want to see. The problem here is one of scale - even if we get just 8 or 9 candidates, the poll would have to be massive. It also means that no Senator can claim a personal constituency, making the the actual election less transparent.

[b]6. Vote for Composition by PM Ballot[/b] - this system avoids the scale problem of 5 by having people fill in a ballot and submit it to an official (the Supreme Court, presumably) by PM. However, this means that votes are not cast privately, and the system cannot be monitored by anyone outside the Supreme Court, creating a significant risk of fraud, whether deliberate or accidental.

EDIT: Perhpas this discussion should go in the Town Square?

RE: Upcoming Elections

maniacalmonkey — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 05:35:50 GMT

An unexpectedly spiky issue, this one. Let's review our options.

[b]1. Candidates run for Senator[/b] - in this option, all candidates are listed in a single poll, and the top 5 are made Senator. The problem that has been raised with this one is due to the fairly low number of Citizens the DGame has at this moment - we may end up with only two or three Senators actually getting votes. If that should happen, there should be "tie breaker" elections for the other candidates, which prolongs the process. In my opinion, however, this is the most democratic system.

[b]2. Candidates run randomly opposed[/b] - as suggested by Mongoose, if there are more than 5 candidates, some may be paired as opponents by random draw. This, however, means that two popular candidates may find themselves opposed to each other, so only one of them will make it to the Senate, whereas an impopular candidate might get a seat by default. I feel that this undermines the influence of the People, and hence the democratic aspect of Senate elections.

[b]3. Candidates run for specific seats[/b] - this would necessitate five polls (one for each seat) with candidates allowed to run for only one of them. The problem here is that it makes the time at which a candidate announces his intention a factor. Getting in early allows you to go for an unopposed seat - getting in late allows you to pick your opponent. Again, this introduces a factor other than popular support to the equation, undermining the direct influence of the People.

[b]4. Candidates run as parties[/b] - in this system, candidates are required to form parties. People then vote for parties and seats are divided accordingly. The problem here is that it forces a party system upon the Community, unless candidates run as one-man parties in which case this is really no different from option 1. Also, with only five seats to distribute, we may very quickly run into ties and such.

A couple of notes:

- I think that democratic elections should be focussed on getting the most popular candidates into the Senate, based on citizen votes. Introducing any other factor (like chance, or timing) into the process, in my opinion, undermines this and should be avoided if possible.

- This decision is ultimately for the Supreme Court to make, as they are the ones required to organize and oversee the election.

RE: Upcoming Elections

mongoose201 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:34:11 GMT

FWIW, I would be opposed to any system where votes are pm'ed. If that's what we end up with, ok, but why go to the possible hassle of future problems when we have working polls?

As I wrote elswhere, none of this is particularly complicated. Why go out of our way to make it so? 5 polls, one for each seat, some unopposed if need be, random drawings for those polls with multiple candidates. Simple, effective, and all out in the open eliminating hassles down the road.

ADDED: Presidential Campaigns can now begin!

RE: Upcoming Elections

Locus Coeruleus — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 01:19:47 GMT

Does it need to be Public though? Why not just PM the ballots to both judges, that way there can be some sort of confirmation process. It would give the judges something to do, for that matter! :)

RE: Upcoming Elections

jerm — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:26:01 GMT

It is my opinion that we should simply have separate polls for each of the cantidates. Sure this may be a bit of a pain but it would seem to me the most fair. Vote yes or no on each person. The only problem then is how you make sure that each person only votes yes for 5 cantidates. Perhaps we should try some practice polls to iron out any unforseen issues.

Addit: I made a [url=http://www.1bcciv.com/Topic2232944-88-1.aspx]test poll[/url] but I'm not sure it's the way to go. Here's an idea. We elect a person (or it could just be one of the judges) with whom we can each pm our votes to. This way, we can monitor cheating and invalidate any... invalid votes. Only problem is it's not public and perhaps not such a good idea. Another thought I had was that we set up 5 districts and cantidates declare which district they wish to run under. This would essentially mean the election goes down the way Mongoose suggests but there is a choice to a small degree to who you are running against. None of these solve all of the problems but perhaps it will inspire someone with good analitical skills to come up with a good solution.

RE: Upcoming Elections

mongoose201 — Sat, 10 Mar 2007 00:07:19 GMT

There has been some discussion about how the Senate elections will be handled. I think this is a good time/place to make sure we are on the same page.

First, we will probably campaign/elect the President before we begin the process with the Senate. This is because we are very early in the process, and with fewer people it allows whoever doesn't get elected President to run for Senate if that is their desire.

Second, my idea for the Senate elections is as follows: If there are five people campaigning, they will run unopposed (other than abstain) in their own Senatorial election. If a 6th (or 7th, 8th) enters the campaign, I will put the first five names in a hat/bowl and draw. The name that I draw now has someone to run against. With the 7th person campaigning, it would only be the 4 remaining unopposed that would be subject to the draw, etc, etc.

If anyone has any other ideas, start trying to convince me now. The newly elected judges will also be involved in this process.

Upcoming Elections

mongoose201 — Mon, 26 Feb 2007 23:29:58 GMT

Our first election will be to elect two judges to the Supreme Court.

Those wishing to run for Supreme Court Justice may begin campaigning now for an election that will happen within the next 2 weeks.

After the Supreme Court is installed, campaigning will begin for the Presidency and Senate.