Voting System Reform

Haghan

So, this is a bit of a reaction to some current problems, but it is part of a greater issue of how we do things with voting.

We are currently using a 'winner takes all' or 'first past the post' system of voting for issues that are much more complex. Currently, we just vote for one option in a system, which can cause mathematical issues and often leads to a 'join the bandwagon option that has the best chance of beating your most hated proposal' situation.

It also leads to some issues in org elections, as sometimes people must rally around their least favored candidate in order to defeat a suspicious candidate.

Now, this simple single vote voting system is really just a way of managing easy paper ballots and few argue that they are the most accurate voting systems, only that they are the most feasible.  However, by the online nature of Lusternia, we are already computerized and able to work with advanced options.

I think that player voting can play an important role in making us feel a part of the community, so that we continue to play and support this game.  Adding in a more inclusive voting system would make people feel as though they count more, which would hopefully boost player participation and remove the frustration of people feeling that their imput doesn't count.  This is not a difficult issue to implement with electronic voting, and I think in could increase player satisfaction.

One alternative that is possible would be Acceptance Voting. (This would be easy to implement for the current referendum in Seren)
The basics:
1) Everyone can vote for each proposal to say if they approve it.
2) People can vote 'ok' for more than one of the proposals
3) Whichever proposal has the most acceptance, wins.
Here's a link to a simple Youtube example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orybDrUj4vA

The author of that video puts out some nice proposals on voting syhttp://stems, which I think might be useful in Lusternia.

One system for org leaders, Alternative Voting, or Instant Runoff Voting (Vote for  your #1, #2 , #3 etc choice)
2) Everyone's top votes are counted, if someone has 51% they win.
3) If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their voters get moved to their second choice vote.
4) If some has 51% they win, otherwise repeat step 3
One again, a nice video: Alternative Voting


An aside on the current vote in Seren: I cannot tell if the voting options are set up the way they are because A) 'that is what the system allows' or 'there's an IC attempt to rig the voting by setting it up that way'.  If it is IC, I apologize for using the forums to subvert your plans. Though what would be the appropriate IC recourse  should such happen?

Ssaliss

I'd be all for a voting system like this, and even extend it to referendums (at least as an option). It doesn't seem that hard from a syntax point of view either; all you'd have to do would be to "referendum # vote for 1 4 2 3". There might be cases where you'd not want that option for referendums though (although truly, I can't think of any right now), but I see no issue at all with always having it for elections.

Lavinya

I think how you interpret referendums is entirely up to the players. You can stipulate a majority of the votes makes a win,  not just the highest number, so if option a and b get 32% and 31% with options e-f getting smaller numbers, you go back to voting for -just- those options. You don't need to code around this.

Elections can't work this way obviously, but if we bring in preferential voting it will become easier to game and I will cry.

Enyalida

It would be nice to have an option coded in to handle it automatically, instead of having to revote over and over.

Preferential voting easier to game than FPtP? How?

Everiine

I posted exactly how I thought the options should be interpreted. Guild/commune elections, that's one thing. It's results are interpreted automatically. Refrendums, however, are interpreted by players. If we set them up right, with the right options, it's not a problem. If we don't, and then, interpret them poorly, it's our own fault.

Steingrim

Haghan said:

So, this is a bit of a reaction to some current problems, but it is part of a greater issue of how we do things with voting.

We are currently using a 'winner takes all' or 'first past the post' system of voting for issues that are much more complex. Currently, we just vote for one option in a system, which can cause mathematical issues and often leads to a 'join the bandwagon option that has the best chance of beating your most hated proposal' situation.

It also leads to some issues in org elections, as sometimes people must rally around their least favored candidate in order to defeat a suspicious candidate.

Now, this simple single vote voting system is really just a way of managing easy paper ballots and few argue that they are the most accurate voting systems, only that they are the most feasible.  However, by the online nature of Lusternia, we are already computerized and able to work with advanced options.

I think that player voting can play an important role in making us feel a part of the community, so that we continue to play and support this game.  Adding in a more inclusive voting system would make people feel as though they count more, which would hopefully boost player participation and remove the frustration of people feeling that their imput doesn't count.  This is not a difficult issue to implement with electronic voting, and I think in could increase player satisfaction.

One alternative that is possible would be Acceptance Voting. (This would be easy to implement for the current referendum in Seren)
The basics:
1) Everyone can vote for each proposal to say if they approve it.
2) People can vote 'ok' for more than one of the proposals
3) Whichever proposal has the most acceptance, wins.
Here's a link to a simple Youtube example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=orybDrUj4vA

The author of that video puts out some nice proposals on voting syhttp://stems, which I think might be useful in Lusternia.

One system for org leaders, Alternative Voting, or Instant Runoff Voting (Vote for  your #1, #2 , #3 etc choice)
2) Everyone's top votes are counted, if someone has 51% they win.
3) If not, the lowest candidate is eliminated and their voters get moved to their second choice vote.
4) If some has 51% they win, otherwise repeat step 3
One again, a nice video: Alternative Voting


An aside on the current vote in Seren: I cannot tell if the voting options are set up the way they are because A) 'that is what the system allows' or 'there's an IC attempt to rig the voting by setting it up that way'.  If it is IC, I apologize for using the forums to subvert your plans. Though what would be the appropriate IC recourse  should such happen?

I prefer, 'Consensus Voting'. The problem with instant run off is you can have the group's least supported candidate win.

Consider.

Candidate A. 51% of the group supports this person. They win even if 49% would place them last in a field of three or more.

Candidate B. 28% of the group outright supports.

Candidate C. 21% of the group outright supports, but half of those supporting Candidate B would prefer C to A. While two-thirds of those supporting A would also support C over B.

Sounds complicated, but you would just vote your preference in order, 3, 2, 1; 2, 3, 1, etc. Then the person is awarded points based on your ranking. If you vote 2, 1, 3, then your vote is counted like this.

First choice: 2 (your vote * 3)
Second choice 1 (your vote * 2)
Third choice 3 (your vote * 1)

The winner is the person who has the most overall support.