[Cam] Instant Runoff Voting

[xsands]

People get confused on the Camarilla's instant runoff voting rules. First off you can read them for yourself hereBut really what helps is an example, so I'm making one. First lets get say 4 candidates to make this annoying

Comments

[thesilenteyes]

Mind if I pass this along to my Domain list? I'm pretty tired of seeing actual votes for None of the Above in the number two spot when there's only one person running for office.

[xsands]

Oh, that's technically correct though unnecessary as it doesn't do anything. I just didn't bother to handle/list none of the above because it wasn't interesting for my example. I was more focusing on the eliminating process.

But feel free to pass along as helpful.

[thesilenteyes]

None of the Above was a bad example, I just think it's pointless to put a spot whenever you actually intend to cast your vote for an actual person. Here I watched people's ignorance of how the voting system works give us some pretty bad officers, just because people's votes weren't cast, "Powerfully," as I call it. (Meaning, stating just "1. So-And-So" and voting for no one else.)

[auron_culari]

You got it right.

The instant runoff system has some pretty weird results. I wish that there was some other way to do it - maybe a proportional support system or something - that allowed for a compromise candidate more cleanly than the instant runoff system.

[impernious]

A very simple way to handle an election that doesn't require instant runoff is to do a popular election. Every member that wishes to vote gets 1 vote. 1 person they want to win with no real compromises. Then if no one gets 51% of the votes, then there is a runoff vote between the two highest people. It is voted on again 1 vote for every member.

I know a lot of people would balk about that idea. But we already do it for things on the domain level, and for the national position of NSO. We could set up a website like survey monkey and go through votes that way, or there could be specific e-mail addresses set up for the proctors to go through. The most taxing thing would be to verify that each vote was valid (i.e. member not expired, not a duplicate vote) and tally them. Sometimes I see vote counting for the instant runoff system take days, I bet it wouldn't take any longer for a popular election system.

[auron_culari]

The problem I've encountered when quantifying it like that is that it opens up the possibility of a tied vote. The instant runoff system only very rarely returns a tied vote.