Concerning the tied election

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

[Poirot]

The most first preference was the tiebreaker (and most people probably thought that) for most of my time in Atlasia but one day Bacon King I believe showed the text of a law, proving we operated under a false presumption.

I don't like the first preference being the tiebreaker because it discourages voting for someone who is not considered a contender for the win. Like if you vote for a small party candidate you end up hurting the chances of your second chance candidate.

I think in one Senate election I did not even vote for myself because I was wasting my vote on myself (we operated probably falsely under first preference as tiebreaker), my second preference vote was worth less to this candidate than if I first preference the person.

The Northeast regional Senate race was sometimes very close and one time I even asked permission of another declared candidate to run because I didn't want to spoil his chances in case it was a tie and I got a few votes that would maybe transfer to that candidate as second preference. Being on the ballot can be a disadvantage for another candidate if the result is a tie.

Using first preference as tiebreaker (even if it was not legally correct) can cause worries to voter and candidate. 

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The most first preference was the tiebreaker (and most people probably thought that) for most of my time in Atlasia but one day Bacon King I believe showed the text of a law, proving we operated under a false presumption.

I don't like the first preference being the tiebreaker because it discourages voting for someone who is not considered a contender for the win. Like if you vote for a small party candidate you end up hurting the chances of your second chance candidate.

I think in one Senate election I did not even vote for myself because I was wasting my vote on myself (we operated probably falsely under first preference as tiebreaker), my second preference vote was worth less to this candidate than if I first preference the person.

The Northeast regional Senate race was sometimes very close and one time I even asked permission of another declared candidate to run because I didn't want to spoil his chances in case it was a tie and I got a few votes that would maybe transfer to that candidate as second preference. Being on the ballot can be a disadvantage for another candidate if the result is a tie.

Using first preference as tiebreaker (even if it was not legally correct) can cause worries to voter and candidate. 

No system is going to be perfect. All I am saying is that if people want to avoid presidential runoffs as much as possible, it is the least bad option.

[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.

[LLR]

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.

Spoiler effect...

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

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.

Spoiler effect...

Save for the run that Poirot mentioned in the NE from July 2013 until Oct 2014, 1 vote elections and ties have been sporadic and therefore such a spoiler effect induced in that process is rather minimal.

Even so, it is more solid in that at the very least you can count on it to produce a candidate, whereas relying on most second preferences risks as I said a race to the bottom as I described above.

[Bacon King]

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.

...

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.

Poirot is right - historically we've been doing tiebreakers wrong for a very long time. This legal language is exactly the same as what governed tiebreakers back in 2009, because I remember after I discovered we had been misinterpreting the law (I don't remember when that was, but it was when I told Poirot - maybe 2013?), I looked back and saw Lief and I were wrongfully elected in 2009 when we should have gone into a runoff against PiT! When someone linked me to the current election law last night I immediately recognized it as the very same law that had been misinterpreted back then.

I do remember looking way back to see what the "intent" was of the Atlasians of yesteryear who actually wrote the law, and I saw for the first year or two afterwards, runoffs were indeed done like the law says they're supposed to according to my understanding of the law (of course, back then when we only had federal elections with only 20 voters, ties were much more common!).

If I had to guess I'd suggest we probably lost the correct interpretation when Gabu left the forum - he had been singlehandedly running federal elections for a long time. Interestingly, IIRC the winner in a tie was misunderstood to be "whoever had more preferences in the previous round" before it was misinterpreted to be "whoever had more first preferences" (and at one point it was even somehow misunderstood to be "whoever is preferenced at any level among the most ballots".


I agree the correct runoff rule - as well as all the wrong ways that tiebreakers have incorrectly been done in the past - are all flawed and none of them really seem to be objectively fair. If I can suggest a superior method, it would be some pseudo-random algorithm anyone could do to figure out the winner of a tie.

e.g. perhaps something to the effect of:

"the sum of the letters in both candidate's usernames, multiplied by the the last two digits in the post time of the most recent vote, minus the User ID of the most recent officeholder of the office being elected, then the digits are added together, and if the resulting number is odd the winner is the candidate who has been a member of Atlasia longer, and if it's even it goes to the newer member"

or anything like that, unambiguous and specific so it can reliably provide a clear winner in a way that can't be gamed or faked

[Хahar 🤔]

I think the only fair thing to do if there is a tie is to disqualify both tied candidates and give the election to the third-place candidate.

[The world will shine with light in our nightmare]

I just think it's amazing how Crooked Hillary has managed to rig even fake elections.  It's Sad!

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The right thing to do, like it or not, is to follow the American 12th Amendment. The house chooses the president and the senate the VP. Or have a Runoff this weekend.

[White Trash]

I just think it's amazing how Crooked Hillary has managed to rig even fake elections.  It's Sad!

[MASHED POTATOES. VOTE!]

The right thing to do, like it or not, is to follow the American 12th Amendment.

You do realize Atlasian law is not a copied U.S. law?

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

The right thing to do, like it or not, is to follow the American 12th Amendment.

You do realize Atlasian law is not a copied U.S. law?

I'm quite aware of that. I was just trying to make a suggestion on addressing the situation.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

The right thing to do, like it or not, is to follow the American 12th Amendment.

You do realize Atlasian law is not a copied U.S. law?

I'm quite aware of that. I was just trying to make a suggestion on addressing the situation.

The discussion is academic at this point, regarding future instances of this occurring.

[Grumpier Than Thou]

The right thing to do, like it or not, is to follow the American 12th Amendment. The house chooses the president and the senate the VP. Or have a Runoff this weekend.

What is America?