Particracy RP & the upcoming US Presidential election

[Siggon Kristov]

Rathon, if you're in support of #5, you could revisit your original list of regions, and change it to be 5 regions. You would, however, need to include the non-playable nations, so maybe we need someone from the Global RP team to help with this.

#5 is good, but I personally prefer #4, as it still gives the semblance of an election for one overall leader that was initially proposed, even though that leader will be elected indirectly by regional candidates. And with #4, I would think that a larger number of regions would be desirable, both to simplify things for the average player (fewer candidates per region) and to get more finalists into the second round (players who are more likely to commit their time and effort).

Oh, well yes... 5 regions would be ideal for #5, but it wouldn't matter for #4. Still, I agree with jamescfm that it should be an odd number. Also, it should include the non-playable nations.

The only other thing I would add to Siggon's proposal here is that everyone should have the right to vote on the candidates. I am not clear whether Siggon is proposing this implicitly, but if all the candidates are from Majatra, people in Selaya should still be able to vote for or against these candidates. If that's in the proposal, I don't see it suggested.

I disagree here, for both IC and OOC reasons. IC, the point of having regional candidates is that they each represent their region, thus they shouldn't be elected by parties outside the region. OOC, the point of having regional candidates is that we're trying to simplify things for the average player by reducing the number of candidates he/she has to consider.

...Unless you're referring to proposal #1, in which case, yes, the whole world should be able to vote even though it's Artania's turn to be the leader.

Yeah, I think he was referring to #1 without understanding it, but I guess his criticism would apply to #3.

[Rathon]

Rathon, if you're in support of #5, you could revisit your original list of regions, and change it to be 5 regions. You would, however, need to include the non-playable nations, so maybe we need someone from the Global RP team to help with this.

#5 is good, but I personally prefer #4, as it still gives the semblance of an election for one overall leader that was initially proposed, even though that leader will be elected indirectly by regional candidates. And with #4, I would think that a larger number of regions would be desirable, both to simplify things for the average player (fewer candidates per region) and to get more finalists into the second round (players who are more likely to commit their time and effort).

Oh, well yes... 5 regions would be ideal for #5, but it wouldn't matter for #4. Still, I agree with jamescfm that it should be an odd number. Also, it should include the non-playable nations.

Hmm... I don't think the non-playable nations should have too much influence. I would suggest perhaps these regions:

1. Artania North: Dorvik, Aloria, Kirlawa, Dundorf, Rutania, Kundrati, Endralon
2. Artania South and Keymon: Hawu Mumenhes, Luthori, Beluzia, Hobrazia, Darnussia, Malivia, Keymon
3. Majatra North: Beiteynu, Pontesi, Barmenia, Vanuku, Jelbania, Selucia, Cildania, Badara
4. Majatra South: Zardugal, Cobura, Deltaria, Jakania, Kalopia, Kafuristan, Solentia, Istalia
5. Makon and Keris: Davostag, Hutori, Telamon, Trigunia, Dolgaria, New Endralon/Kizenia, Egelion
6. Seleya North: Lodamun, Likatonia, Valruzia, Kalistan, Baltusia, Tukarali, Gaduridos
7. Seleya South and Indrala: Aldegar, Saridan, Mordusia, Aldurie, Rildanor, Kanjor, Indrala
8. "Playable" Dovani: Dankuk, Kazulia, Mikuni-Hulstria, Sekowo, Lourenne, Talmoria, Vorona
9. Non-playable nations.

For proposal #5, I would suggest a different approach, lest the leadership be under the control of non-player nations a full one-fifth of the time.

[Doc]

To be clear... Are you suggesting that each nation would rank the candidates, or would the candidates just be ranked by continent? I got a little confused because first it seemed like you were referring to a continent, then it seemed like you were referring to nations.

I would disapprove, either way. For one, we must remember that individual nations are not individual persons; there are multiple players in a nation, so coming to a consensus on how ranking should be done would be a pain. If you mean by continent, I would still disapprove because the weight of points in such a system is arbitrary, and highly-dependent on the number of candidates. For example, if there are 3 candidates, each vote would give the first choice double the amount of points as the second choice, whereas if there are 5 candidates, the first choice would get 4 points and the second choice gets 3 points, and with 10 candidates, the variation between the top 2 would be minimal. A ranked system is fine, but a mix between a ranked system and a point-based system will produce some weird number phenomena.

Actually I was talking about each voting Party. I would be fine with whatever, but I think every interested Party should have a vote. And doing this would necessarily preclude use of the Game Mechanic.

[Siggon Kristov]

For proposal #5, I would suggest a different approach, lest the leadership be under the control of non-player nations a full one-fifth of the time.

I think the Global RP Team is responsible for making up RP involving them. I don't find it unimaginable that the Global RP Team would allow someone who's not on the team to control a character from one of those countries, and Dovani has some playable nations that we can hope would get the leadership of those regions sometimes.

And a full one-fifth of the time doesn't look so bad when you consider the context of #5. It's not like #1 or #3 where the non-player nation would have leadership for a full month every 5 real-life months... It would just be 6 real-life days out of every 30 real-life days. Maybe we can have the non-player nation controlling the leadership for the last 3 in-game years in every 15-year term (when we would be conducting the election for the new term anyway).

Actually I was talking about each voting Party. I would be fine with whatever, but I think every interested Party should have a vote. And doing this would necessarily preclude use of the Game Mechanic.

I'm not clear on exactly what you're proposing.

[Rathon]

I oppose the idea of each party getting a vote, as opposed to each nation. Simply because nations like Kalistan would get somewhere around 8 votes, and nations like Jelbania would only get one, simply because some nations have more active players than others.

I would disapprove, either way. For one, we must remember that individual nations are not individual persons; there are multiple players in a nation, so coming to a consensus on how ranking should be done would be a pain. If you mean by continent, I would still disapprove because the weight of points in such a system is arbitrary, and highly-dependent on the number of candidates. For example, if there are 3 candidates, each vote would give the first choice double the amount of points as the second choice, whereas if there are 5 candidates, the first choice would get 4 points and the second choice gets 3 points, and with 10 candidates, the variation between the top 2 would be minimal. A ranked system is fine, but a mix between a ranked system and a point-based system will produce some weird number phenomena.

There are ways around that, though. Use a truncated ballot (ranking only the top four, for instance, regardless of the number of candidates) or Nauru's method, which doesn't cause those types of problems until further down the ranking.

[Siggon Kristov]

Actually I was talking about each voting Party. I would be fine with whatever, but I think every interested Party should have a vote. And doing this would necessarily preclude use of the Game Mechanic.

I oppose the idea of each party getting a vote, as opposed to each nation. Simply because nations like Kalistan would get somewhere around 8 votes, and nations like Jelbania would only get one, simply because some nations have more active players than others.

I agree we should do it based on nations and not parties. Doing it based on parties is a bit complex, and may mandate everyone's participation. Even if we do it in a way where every nation is equal, regardless of parties, bringing everything down to parties still just seems like it would require a complex system, and Doc hasn't really elaborated on what exactly he's proposing, i.e. how the votes are weighted, and the entire general process. It gets even more complex if we're doing it by parties and using Borda count.

I would disapprove, either way. For one, we must remember that individual nations are not individual persons; there are multiple players in a nation, so coming to a consensus on how ranking should be done would be a pain. If you mean by continent, I would still disapprove because the weight of points in such a system is arbitrary, and highly-dependent on the number of candidates. For example, if there are 3 candidates, each vote would give the first choice double the amount of points as the second choice, whereas if there are 5 candidates, the first choice would get 4 points and the second choice gets 3 points, and with 10 candidates, the variation between the top 2 would be minimal. A ranked system is fine, but a mix between a ranked system and a point-based system will produce some weird number phenomena.

There are ways around that, though. Use a truncated ballot (ranking only the top four, for instance, regardless of the number of candidates) or Nauru's method, which doesn't cause those types of problems until further down the ranking.

The truncated ballot would still make it a 3, 2, 1 thing. The latter idea seems a bit complex IMO. I guess using both ideas at once would work, though I'd still much prefer (and therefore advocate for) a more simple system.

The underlined part of my quote is still unaddressed. A country may bicker over who should be in the 2nd and 3rd places.

The more perfect and ideally fair we try to make the election system is the more work it will take to maintain it. I think we should have simplicity as one of our main goals. A lot of persons will be driven away when we have this elaborate system that only those conducting the election will have much interest in.

[Doc]

I oppose the idea of each party getting a vote, as opposed to each nation. Simply because nations like Kalistan would get somewhere around 8 votes, and nations like Jelbania would only get one, simply because some nations have more active players than others.

This will be an issue, I think with whatever arrangement we come up with. I thought one Party one vote. At the end of the day, I would be in favor of just sending delegates to a GA, two per country (with those who do not want to get involved not getting a say in the matter) and letting those delegates vote for world leader, from a list of acceptable nominees, with simple majority rules. I think anything else is unnecessarily complex. In the US I never vote for a "world Leader" or have any say whatsoever in who the Secretary General of the UN is. Nor do I have any say over who sits on the Security Council and makes decisions for me, which is one of the reasons that I don't really much follow the UN. I don't see it as a democratic body at all. For as much input as I have, they may as well pull the names out of a hat- the outcome would be just the same for me.

What I was proposing, but I suppose am now withdrawing, because it seems Byzantine compared to a GA idea, is that each player simply rank their preferences for world leader. I suppose we will be provided a candidates' List. So if there are 10 official candidates for whatever election, we rank our preferences by order. Lets say Candidates A through J

I would rank them as follows:

1. H gets 9 votes
2. B gets 8 votes
3. C gets 7 votes
4. F gets 6 votes
5. A gets 5 votes
6. G gets 4 votes
7. E gets 3 votes
8. J gets 2 votes
9. D gets 1 vote
10. I gets 0 votes

My favorite would get the most votes, my least favorite would get the least votes.

Lets say that over all, H got last place in the election, and would be knocked out. Then my 9 votes would go to candidate B, and on the second round, candidate B would get 17 votes in the next round.

In Round 2 lets think Candidate E gets knocked out. so the 3 votes I put on E got to candidate B in the third round. And for the third Round then, B would have, from me, the 20 votes, and all the other candidates would keep the same number of votes that I gave them. If in the Third round, candidate B got knocked out, those 20 votes go to my third place choice, candidate C who then goes forward with 27 of my votes (20 that Candidate B was carrying and the 7 Candidate C was already carrying.

Each round, everyone's votes are added up to the previous round's totals to determine which candidate is knocked out for that round. With 10 candidates, you could theoretically go 9 rounds before a majority is determined, but it could also theoretically be decided much earlier. If Candidate H was widely popular and number 1 or number 2 for everyone, that candidate could wrack up a majority fairly early in the contest. But you would avoid any sort of run off, and the votes are always transferred to the candidate on the top of everyone's list of preferences. This would ensure that everyone's preferences are adequately expressed, and the winner of the contest is far more likely to be preferable to most of the people at some level, then a simple majoritarian decision.

It really is quite a simple way to ensure that actual preferences, and not anxiety over wasting your vote, is what is being measured. And it gives lesser known candidates, even if named fourth or fifth by enough people, a chance to compete through the later rounds. While counting might seem a bit difficult, I still think you could accomplish it with an excel macro, by inputting everyone's ranking, doing some transformations and simple addition. I could do this calculation with pen and paper, and as a matter of fact, have actually seen it done in person.

And its the least like the US system of selecting leaders that you could imagine...

[Doc]

Anyway- what is the payoff to this discussion? Will any of this be implemented, or should we just say Keep it simple, and that be the end of it? So often the ideal falls to the practical, and I can imagine that if we have some elaborate system which is impossible to do repeatedly without headaches, nobody will use it. Why not just go with a simple majoritarian system, with indirect democracy. Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates for the SG slot, and the GA would vote on that, not the Parties or the nations or the continents...

[Siggon Kristov]

I oppose the idea of each party getting a vote, as opposed to each nation. Simply because nations like Kalistan would get somewhere around 8 votes, and nations like Jelbania would only get one, simply because some nations have more active players than others.

This will be an issue, I think with whatever arrangement we come up with. I thought one Party one vote.

Oh, well Rathon and I are against that idea. Even if it was an inter-parliamentary union, a nation with 7 parties shouldn't get more representation in an international body than an equally-sized nation that just has 1-3 parties. Also, a party with less than 8% of the seats in Egelion shouldn't get equal representation to a party with 57% of the seats in Lourenne.

At the end of the day, I would be in favor of just sending delegates to a GA, two per country (with those who do not want to get involved not getting a say in the matter) and letting those delegates vote for world leader, from a list of acceptable nominees, with simple majority rules. I think anything else is unnecessarily complex.

Without what you said in brackets, this is actually more complex than the 5 things that have been proposed before your idea. We really don't need every nation to go through the process of appointing 2 delegates to represent them, and then have some conference in which the leader is elected. Really, this is more work than any of the 5 things that have been proposed among Rathon, jamescfm, and me.

With what Aquinas was saying, I was just thinking that each nation would pass a bill to say which candidate we support.

In the US I never vote for a "world Leader" or have any say whatsoever in who the Secretary General of the UN is. Nor do I have any say over who sits on the Security Council and makes decisions for me, which is one of the reasons that I don't really much follow the UN. I don't see it as a democratic body at all. For as much input as I have, they may as well pull the names out of a hat.

I'm not sure how this matters in Particracy. We're not playing as average citizens; we're playing as political parties and - when our parties are in power - states. States collectively decide who is Secretary-General of the UN. It has been a very unequal and closed-door method (until this year), but it has always been among states. Yes, a majority of the legislature in a country may support a candidate that the parliamentary Opposition/minority doesn't support, but such is the nature of politics.

What I was proposing, but I suppose am now withdrawing, because it seems Byzantine compared to a GA idea, is that each player simply rank their preferences for world leader. I suppose we will be provided a candidates' List. So if there are 10 official candidates for whatever election, we rank our preferences by order. Lets say Candidates A through J

I would rank them as follows:

1. H gets 9 votes
2. B gets 8 votes
3. C gets 7 votes
4. F gets 6 votes
5. A gets 5 votes
6. G gets 4 votes
7. E gets 3 votes
8. J gets 2 votes
9. D gets 1 vote
10. I gets 0 votes

My favorite would get the most votes, my least favorite would get the least votes.

As I said (which led Rathon to suggest an alternative)... The relative weight of points in such a system is arbitrary, and highly-dependent on the number of candidates. For example, if there are 3 candidates, each vote would give the first choice double the amount of points as the second choice, whereas if there are 5 candidates, the first choice would get 4 points and the second choice gets 3 points, and with 10 candidates, the variation between the top 2 would be minimal. A ranked system is fine (where only the first-preference votes are taken into account, then the least popular candidate is eliminated), but a mix between a ranked system and a point-based system will produce some weird number phenomena.

If you're doing a point-based system, you really don't need to do the redistribution of votes every round if someone doesn't get a majority, because the relative weight of each rank entirely depends on the number of candidates. It would make slightly more sense if the candidate with the highest score simply won, but even then... being ranked 1st by some persons and 2nd by some persons is much different in a 10-candidate race than a 3-candidate or 4-candidate race.

It really is quite a simple way to ensure that actual preferences, and not anxiety over wasting your vote, is what is being measured.

It's actually more on the elaborate side than the simple side, the most complex idea thus far.

And it gives lesser known candidates, even if named fourth or fifth by enough people, a chance to compete through the later rounds.

This really doesn't matter much in Particracy. It's not like elections in the USA where there are 2 dominant political parties with more funding and eminent candidates compared to candidates from 3rd parties. It's not like any country that has had a 2-party dominance in the political system, and where persons are afraid to vote for "a 3rd party candidate." This is solving a non-existent problem while creating an actual one... unnecessary work and complexity.

While counting might seem a bit difficult, I still think you could accomplish it with an excel macro, by inputting everyone's ranking, doing some transformations and simple addition. I could do this calculation with pen and paper, and as a matter of fact, have actually seen it done in person.

Just inputting everyone's ranking of candidates would be a lot of work. It's nice that you can do it with pen and paper, but we should use a system that anyone can get on board with, i.e. anyone can conduct the election if you're not available for some reason, or anyone can process the votes and get the same end results. It's not something that anyone should specialise in or be the designated permanent person to do. It should be something anyone else can look at, go through, and understand easily. I find it easy to understand, but it looks like a bore, way too much information to go over for a simple election.

--

Anyway- what is the payoff to this discussion? Will any of this be implemented,

That's the idea.

or should we just say Keep it simple, and that be the end of it? So often the ideal falls to the practical,

Which is why the 5 proposals I laid out are very simple and take minimal effort.

and I can imagine that if we have some elaborate system which is impossible to do repeatedly without headaches, nobody will use it.

Exactly.

Why not just go with a simple majoritarian system, with indirect democracy. Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates for the SG slot, and the GA would vote on that, not the Parties or the nations or the continents...

See, I don't clearly understand what you mean by "Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates" - who is this person? What do you mean not the parties or nations? The GA itself would mean each nation needs to appoint delegates. Why not just skip the nonsense, and have the nations say which candidate they support?

[Doc]

Just inputting everyone's ranking of candidates would be a lot of work. It's nice that you can do it with pen and paper, but we should use a system that anyone can get on board with, i.e. anyone can conduct the election if you're not available for some reason, or anyone can process the votes and get the same end results. It's not something that anyone should specialise in or be the designated permanent person to do. It should be something anyone else can look at, go through, and understand easily. I find it easy to understand, but it looks like a bore, way too much information to go over for a simple election.

Which is why I said I am now withdrawing it. But I was explaining it because you and Rathon were saying that you didn't understand what I had originally proposed. So I answered your question. Because apparently, I am not writing in English or something, but some other gibberish, randomly strung together letters and symbols that make what I think is absolutely clear be so opaque to you. I guess that's my fault, for not writing my posts in your voice so that they were absolutely pristinely clear to you. Its a limitation of mine...

See, I don't clearly understand what you mean by "Each term, a person from a different geographical area gets to name candidates" - who is this person? What do you mean not the parties or nations? The GA itself would mean each nation needs to appoint delegates. Why not just skip the nonsense, and have the nations say which candidate they support?

Alright man, you figure it out. You all seem to have the perfect voting system in mind. I thought I was being OVERLY clear with what I was saying- I have already written my share of this thread, and said what was on my mind. I don't see what is so incredibly hard to understand about it, unless the goal is just to debate the matter into the ground...

At this point, if I add anything in response to your vivisection of my comments, I'll just be repeating myself without any additional clarity, so whatever...