I think you should keep the current system, unless you're planning on reducing the number of votable factions.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
- Status
I think you should keep the current system, unless you're planning on reducing the number of votable factions.
I don't think you should keep it as it is, but maybe either an elimination system or one with weighted second preferences?
I was about to suggest something like that, but it would take Tommy a lot of time to determine the victor. Time he could spend writing updates!
I was about to suggest something like that, but it would take Tommy a lot of time to determine the victor. Time he could spend writing updates!
Yeah I don't want to do this.
The way I count the votes is by doing a tally on a raggidy piece of paper. (The last one had tea, coke, irn bru, beer and milk stains on it after being used for 2 elections
- I should try to stop spilling stuff on it ). A rank 1-X would take too long.I'm quite suprised at all this support for 2nd pref, I thought people were grumbling about it during and after the election. I'll think about what to do anyway.
I much preferred the single-vote method. I don't like the idea that someone who has the least amount of primary support can become the Chairman - it just seems to be a strange method of election.
On the other hand this gives us the Compromise alternative, and not someone all the other factions hate.
I agree.
However, a more aggressive foreign policy (with the coalition government) makes for more exciting updates and I'm very much looking forward to that! I must say, Tommy, this is a well written, fascinating AAR.
Yes, the thing is that the dual-vote system gives us the candidate that the least people hate. Under the old system you can win on the plurality of votes. This means that splitting the left or right is disadvantageous, so it requires fewer factions. You'll note that in the last election there were 4 factions described as "right" and only one as "left", explaining the Leninist win in first prefs. There is no incentive to listen to the other factions, so it is often the most extremist within the faction that lead it. I like the second-preference system.
Having multiple factions of the left would be hard to justify, since the left are generally more willing to use authoritarian methods to crush rivals and opposition, meaning that any feasible leader of the left would need to be the sole leader of the left.
How about a party transferable ballot system? All the parties rank their 2nd, 3rd, 4th preferences down the line. Then everybody votes for one party. First the democrats as the smallest party have their ballot(s) transfered to their second preference. Then the second smallest party has their votes transfered to their second preference. And so forth until one party has more then 50% of the vote. If a party's second preference is eliminated, then it's votes are transfered to the third and so forth.
So to give a hypothetical for the last election (keep in mind, people probably would have voted differently):
ML prefs: Lux, Dem, Ana votes 23
Lux prefs: Dem, ML, Ana votes 13
Dem prefs: Lux, Ana, ML votes 1
Ana prefs: Dem, Rev, Lux votes 15
Rev prefs: Ana, Dem, Lux votes 15
Votes needed to win: 34
After 1st round:
ML votes: 23
Lux votes: 14
Dem votes: transfered to Lux
Ana votes: 15
Rev votes: 15
After 2nd round
ML votes: 36
Lux votes: transfered to ML
Dem votes: transfered to Ana
Ana votes: 16
Rev votes: 15
So the ML would win the election with 34 votes. However a shift of just a couple votes could have handed victory to the luxemburgists, anarchists or revolutionaries. This isn't a huge surprise as they all had very strong support in this race. The Dems, unsurprisingly would have lost handily no matter what. For them to win, it would have needed to be one man, one vote with me being the one man. This system would mean Tommy only needs to do a simple tally but reduces the split ticket issue.
Some sort of consolation prize might be handed to the anarchists in this hypothetical case as they would be the opposition leadership with 31 votes (after the revs are eliminated in the 3rd round of elimination). Maybe president of the assembly?
So to give a hypothetical for the last election (keep in mind, people probably would have voted differently):
ML prefs: Lux, Dem, Ana votes 23
Lux prefs: Dem, ML, Ana votes 13
Dem prefs: Lux, Ana, ML votes 1
Ana prefs: Dem, Rev, Lux votes 15
Rev prefs: Ana, Dem, Lux votes 15
Votes needed to win: 34
After 1st round:
ML votes: 23
Lux votes: 14
Dem votes: transfered to Lux
Ana votes: 15
Rev votes: 15
After 2nd round
ML votes: 36
Lux votes: transfered to ML
Dem votes: transfered to Ana
Ana votes: 16
Rev votes: 15
So the ML would win the election with 34 votes. However a shift of just a couple votes could have handed victory to the luxemburgists, anarchists or revolutionaries. This isn't a huge surprise as they all had very strong support in this race. The Dems, unsurprisingly would have lost handily no matter what. For them to win, it would have needed to be one man, one vote with me being the one man. This system would mean Tommy only needs to do a simple tally but reduces the split ticket issue.
Some sort of consolation prize might be handed to the anarchists in this hypothetical case as they would be the opposition leadership with 31 votes (after the revs are eliminated in the 3rd round of elimination). Maybe president of the assembly?
I'm sorry, I'm not one to use strong language, but that's utter nonsense. Right-wingers use if anything more force. There are so many factions within leftism that it is impossible for me to list them all here. That doesn't point to an authoritarian commitment to ideological uniformity. IMO the only reason Lenin had such a large lead is that the two other Lenin-leaning factions didn't stand.
you frighten me with your complicated system.If you want to do an interactive AAR there are two things you need to keep in mind at all times. Keep it simple. Keep it interesting. If you make it too complicated and start to confuse or annoy people (remember that only a small part of the electorate reads very avidly and many don't read the posts between updates) in order to try to make things more interesting then the AAR will fail or atleast see a drop in participation. If you leave things too simple then they won't be interesting to people and the AAR will fail.
I was afriad that 2nd prefs might be confusing, but on the whole they were accepted pretty well. I'm just not sure if they come up with the fairest result.
As for the problem of the Right of the Party being more crowded than the Left. I'm not sure if this has to do with a love of authoritarianism so much as the rejection of the other Left wing factions I've introduced.
Early on we had the German Socialists who burned very brightly at the start before nose diving and fading away.
Then we had the United Front which again succeeded at creating a divided Left (along with the Marxists) but eventually it too died away (without Engels it fell apart).
Then we had the Moderates - the direct continuation of the pre-Lenin Marxists. But they have utterly failed to be relevant and I will probably have them absorbed soon.
Finally there are the Militarists. But they were never really going to steal votes from Marxists. By now they are essentially a branch of the M-Ls who are a little more authoritarian, much more anti-Right and extremely jingoistic and militaristic.
So what are we left with on the Left? The Marxist-Leninists and to a lesser extent the Luxemburgists.
He means the Left in the People's Party (ie the AAR).
I think its justifyable to say that statists are more willing to use authoritarian measures than anti-statists. Its only logic.
Ah, my apologies. The use of force is neither here nor there in regards to elections, though. I don't think statists are more prone to ideological uniformity.
In regard to the fairness of the results, bear in mind that if we'd gone by first prefs. Lenin would have won. 45.6% of voters voted for directly anti-Leninist factions (Anarchists, Dems and Revs) and including Luxemburgists who voted Anti-Leninist as a second preference (reasonable to assume they are opposed to Lenin), this rises to 60.7%. A chairman would have been elected who was opposed by 60% of voters!
Wut? I thought the ML Party was the successor to the Marxist Party?
The Moderates don't have the same dark-red and they only support 1 social reform instead of the 2 of the past M Party (plus they have a boring name
).And wasn't there something in the AAR that said that Lenin swept in and re-vitalised the Marxist Party or something?
Wut? I thought the ML Party was the successor to the Marxist Party?
The Moderates don't have the same dark-red and they only support 1 social reform instead of the 2 of the past M Party (plus they have a boring name
And wasn't there something in the AAR that said that Lenin swept in and re-vitalised the Marxist Party or something?
Lenin basically came in to a faction that had been out of power for a decade and changed it into the Leninist force we have today. In doing so he expelled the Moderates who essentially held the views of the pre-Lenin Marxist.
So the M-L faction was a development of the Marxist faction whilst the Moderates were essentially an unchanged version of it.
I would support Keynes' proposal if Tommy finds some simple way to tally it. However, president of the Assembly should be determined by the worker's vote. The other great difficulty would be how to determine where to place the second, third.... preferences.
If Tommy is willing I have a suggestion for that that may be doable though it would still be somewhat more work. All he would need is a table like the ones we've seen made. Each party attempts to ally with the one it has the most total second preferences in common with. This system thus makes second preferences profitable if a party wishes to see coalition, and also speeds consolidation around the larger parties. Using Communard's table:
.......|M-L| Lux | Rev | Ana | Dem | None
M-L..|..... |..9...|..5...|........|..1... | 7
Lux..|..3..|.......|..1...|....6..| ...3..|
Rev..|..3..|...5..|...... |... 3..|..1....| 3
Ana..|..... |...6..|...9...| ..... | ...... |
Dem.|......|...1..|........| ..... |........|
From the M-L perspective the strongest parter is Lux which 9 of them support and where they receive 3 support (total 12).
The Lux (unfortunately for the system are torn) they mostly support Ana (6) but are only reciprocated with (6) while M-L whom they give (3) return with (9) hence both the Anarchists and M-L compete for the Lux faction should it fail to win.
The Rev have (3+9=12) with the Anarchists for preferred partners (the next preference would be an alliance of convenience with M-L with the rationale that war is the priority)
Ana like Lux is torn with (6+6=12) for Lux and (9+3=12) for Revs.
Dem goes toward Lux with (1+3=4)
Assuming in tied preferences we go with the reciprocated one, M-L go with Lux, and Ana go with Rev. Dem go Lux. The left coalition now has 53% of the assembly, the right has 37%. Coalition leader is either the single largest (M-L) or the "crux" Dem support Lux not M-L hence Lux hold the coalition together and are leaders. Tommy could change the way things go using small factions with 0 party votes and by going in different directions on split allegiance.
EDIT:
For instance if preferences in a split allegiance instead go to the party which has most support within that party, the Lux now go for Ana while the Ana go for Rev. The "right" with Lux now has 57% largest faction is Rev, "crux" is Ana, but if Dem come in to support Lux in a grand coalition, then Lux is alternate "crux". This coalition would be torn by three factions being potential leaders.
EDIT2: considering Tommy's thoughts on Keynes' system this seems even less likely to be chosen. Though I still like it so I'll leave it up.
If Tommy is willing I have a suggestion for that that may be doable though it would still be somewhat more work. All he would need is a table like the ones we've seen made. Each party attempts to ally with the one it has the most total second preferences in common with. This system thus makes second preferences profitable if a party wishes to see coalition, and also speeds consolidation around the larger parties. Using Communard's table:
.......|M-L| Lux | Rev | Ana | Dem | None
M-L..|..... |..9...|..5...|........|..1... | 7
Lux..|..3..|.......|..1...|....6..| ...3..|
Rev..|..3..|...5..|...... |... 3..|..1....| 3
Ana..|..... |...6..|...9...| ..... | ...... |
Dem.|......|...1..|........| ..... |........|
From the M-L perspective the strongest parter is Lux which 9 of them support and where they receive 3 support (total 12).
The Lux (unfortunately for the system are torn) they mostly support Ana (6) but are only reciprocated with (6) while M-L whom they give (3) return with (9) hence both the Anarchists and M-L compete for the Lux faction should it fail to win.
The Rev have (3+9=12) with the Anarchists for preferred partners (the next preference would be an alliance of convenience with M-L with the rationale that war is the priority)
Ana like Lux is torn with (6+6=12) for Lux and (9+3=12) for Revs.
Dem goes toward Lux with (1+3=4)
Assuming in tied preferences we go with the reciprocated one, M-L go with Lux, and Ana go with Rev. Dem go Lux. The left coalition now has 53% of the assembly, the right has 37%. Coalition leader is either the single largest (M-L) or the "crux" Dem support Lux not M-L hence Lux hold the coalition together and are leaders. Tommy could change the way things go using small factions with 0 party votes and by going in different directions on split allegiance.
EDIT:
For instance if preferences in a split allegiance instead go to the party which has most support within that party, the Lux now go for Ana while the Ana go for Rev. The "right" with Lux now has 57% largest faction is Rev, "crux" is Ana, but if Dem come in to support Lux in a grand coalition, then Lux is alternate "crux". This coalition would be torn by three factions being potential leaders.
EDIT2: considering Tommy's thoughts on Keynes' system this seems even less likely to be chosen. Though I still like it so I'll leave it up.
Last edited:
How about we give everyone 10 votes, and you can only give a max of 4 votes to one faction. Your free to waste the rest instead of voting for other partys if you really want to.
Last edited:
Why?
The negatives seem to vastly outweigh any positives of these new and complicated systems. More complicated does not mean better. More often than not making something more complicated makes something worse.
Think of the parable of HoI3.
The negatives seem to vastly outweigh any positives of these new and complicated systems. More complicated does not mean better. More often than not making something more complicated makes something worse.
Think of the parable of HoI3.
- Status