Concerning the tied election

[GAworth]

There were three tickets being voted on. Unless the second preferences of the third ticket split perfectly, I don't understand why everyone is freaking about a tie.

[GAworth]

There were three tickets being voted on. Unless the second preferences of the third ticket split perfectly, I don't understand why everyone is freaking about a tie.

I think the issue was that in certain elections in the past, if it's tied then a tie-break has been to count how many Yankee voters put Blair as a preference and vice versa. The most second preferences at this stage would win the election.

The problem there people will just stop using preferences unless they are voting for third party candidate. They will mark their candidate with an X. This actually happened in a LG race in the South in Feb 2010 under a cumulative preference system, Deldem and TB75 were running against each other and tb75 won literally because tb75's remaining voters only preferenced him. This will produce a very dysfunctional fall back system for a tie and both parties will be discouraging second preferencing of the other candidate.


The best way is the way that it was done in June 2009. Lief had 1 more first preference than PiT. GPorter was eliminated and his 1 vote went to PiT, producing a tie in the second count. Lief was declared the winner because he had the most first preferences.

This is the way that ties have historically been broken in the past in Atlasia

MasterJedi that same election was reelected to Midwest Senate in a similar fashion. He got 8 first preference votes I think and the final count produced a single other candidate with 8 votes, Jedi was declared the winner again because he had more first preferences.

There were other examples I am sure.

The only instance of a runoff being necessary should be when you have a tie in first preferences, and the elimination of the other candidates results in the votes splitting evenly, preserving the tie. You cannot fall back on first preferences in that case, so a runoff makes sense.

I don't like the idea of the House or Senate getting to make the decision because they will always select the majority party's candidate not who the people expressed the most support for.

I apologize, I wrote my statement not realizing (because I mentally fried) that Xahar's preferences had not been allocated. I do not believe that second preferences should be used after only two candidates are left to figure out who becomes President. I think a run-off is potentially necessary.