-
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 can reveal that the Marxist-Leninists have just taken the lead.
They have 30 votes the the Democratic Anarchist 29. I believe this may be the first time they have led for the entire election.
The vote was via visitor message.
They have 30 votes the the Democratic Anarchist 29. I believe this may be the first time they have led for the entire election.
The vote was via visitor message.
Marxist-Leninists
I must say I don't really like Trotsky or the way he rules, but nevertheless it is more or less the legacy of the Militarists so there goes my vote.
I must say I don't really like Trotsky or the way he rules, but nevertheless it is more or less the legacy of the Militarists so there goes my vote.
AGHHH!
It is absolutely imperative that no-more votes go to the National Communists, Anarcho-Kadonists or the Luxermbergists if we want to keep Trotsky out!
It is absolutely imperative that no-more votes go to the National Communists, Anarcho-Kadonists or the Luxermbergists if we want to keep Trotsky out!
Why is vote-changing considered taboo? I realise it makes things a bit difficult for Tommy, but these are extraordinary circumstances and if they genuinely prefer one candidate over the other I don't see what's wrong. With the return of OMOV and Party vote not affecting the Assembly, a vote for a small faction is literally wasted anyway, it's hardly fair to them.
Also damnit Zimmerwald!
Also damnit Zimmerwald!
Better were, we vote a representative, who then votes for a faction we want to have the power. Since absolute majority cannot be reached, lesser factions, like Lux or Kadonist representatives then choose to stand behind some major faction.
Even better, the people vote the chairman, and the forumites then choose the assembly.
Vote for democratic anarchists! Secure democracy and freedom!
Stop to bloodshed!
Even better, the people vote the chairman, and the forumites then choose the assembly.
Vote for democratic anarchists! Secure democracy and freedom!
Stop to bloodshed!
I hate that this is what this AAR has become.
No, no, a thousand times no. Technically speaking the VSVR already has an electoral college, Us. What you're suggesting is an electoral college inside an electoral college.
OOC: Why? It's not unheard of in IRL politics that one man is detested by his oppositon (E.g. de Gaulle, FDR etc.).
As I've said before, OMOV with a single plurality outcome (i.e. with no proportional representation but a single winner) should lead to a two party system according to game theory, as the strongest factions' power unites opposition, consolidating parties. Third parties when introduced either displace one of the leading two or die. Unless of course you have so called simple voters that always vote for first choice.
That appears to be what's happened here, no? A way to remedy it without making Tommy's workload any larger would be to address the single plurality issue, rather than the OMOV issue. I'd certainly support a second chamber elected by the Party, whose function is to decide the Chairman.
Because in IRL politics you can't go "oh, the election isn't developing in a way I like. I'll change my vote at the last possible moment!". At least you can't in any respectable democracy.
But IRL there one won't usually be elected without obtaining majority.
That requires here a second voting, or a second preference.
Or Tommy could choose that Kadonists shall choose to back Democrats, just as well as Luxemburgists have always been siding with Marxists (are they leashed?
).
Well, actually, you do, that is the essence of tactical voting. You look at the polls and use those to decide who is closest to your views and most likely to win. Well, you do when any of the main candidates represent your views at all, but I digress. This system has a different spin on it because (a) in real life you don't know the result of an election until after it's finished and (b) We have no opinion polls. Thus the sum of the votes cast so far act as the "opinion polls" and the more votes have been cast, the more accurate the "poll".
Actually media polls serve this purpose in most modern information democracies. The earliest ones tend to represent voters that are already decided. As candidates lose support, their supporters go to more successful ones choosing those they prefer over others. Meanwhile swing voters begin to decide their allegiance. Theoretically repeated sampling should lead to two opposed candidates reasonably near the center. By election day votes have already changed to reflect all this.
Exactly. We don't have opinion polls. Vote changing here is essentially akin to walking down to your polling station after the polls have closed and the initial counts are in and going "I don't like how this election is going. I withdraw my vote for C and place it for A, because I really don't like B!". It's especially wrong when the election could literally be decided by a single vote.
No, it's the equivalent of always intending to vote for Candidate C, and telling everyone that, including any pollsters, but then the polls show that C doesn't have a chance so on the day itself you vote A to keep B out. It is grossly unfair to expect people to vote in a OMOV election when they have no idea who is going to come out ahead.
That is why we should have system where we vote for representatives, who then hold close to our views and choose the chairman.
Majority wins, minority cannot win.
Majority wins, minority cannot win.
Speaking of all this since NC can't win,
I vote....
Democratic Anarchists
One vote short of the great tie!
I vote....
Democratic Anarchists
One vote short of the great tie!
TBH, i have more problems with people voting via private messages than with vote-swapping.
That's a single special case, due to technical issues one reader isn't able to post at all.
- Status