[Discussion] Plurality Voting

[Jakker]

The first topic we will be hitting is plurality voting, which was brought up by Curator Cormac. He stated:

Something else we may want to discuss in regard to election law is doing away with plurality voting. As it stands, we could easily end up electing an official who has only a small plurality if there are several candidates in the race. This could be a particular problem in elections for Pharaoh, an official who definitely should have majority support as they will be serving as Delegate. We could achieve majority voting by going back to run-off elections -- though we switched to plurality to get rid of run-offs -- or by implementing ranked choice voting. My preference would be the latter.

Section 6 of the State Code reads:

Section 6: Election of Officials

3. All elected officials will be elected by plurality vote of the Deshret.

Definition of plurality vote: electoral process in which the candidate who polls more votes than any other candidate is elected.

---

-Are we satisfied with the current system?
-If yes, can it be strengthened or should it be left the same?
-If no, why are we not satisfied?
-What solutions do we feel would strengthen our electoral process?

EDIT: Added Cormac's note about addition potential amendments:

Sections 1.3 and 2.3 of the Election Administration Act may also need amended to reflect preferential voting if we go that route, and we probably need to flesh out the confidence vote provisions as well, there are problems there.

[Kajan]

What about a system of preferential voting?

Spoiler

Definition:

a system of voting whereby the voter indicates his order of preference for each of the candidates listed on the ballot for a specified office so that if no candidate receives a majority of first preferences the first and second preferences and if necessary third and other preferences may be counted together

[Chingis]

Makes sense tbh. (Cormac's suggestion, that is)

[Cormac]

Preferential voting (e.g., ranked choice or instant run-off) is probably the way to go. The reason we went to plurality voting in the first place was because we were having an issue with run-off voting taking too long, and a couple of situations in which run-offs nearly resulted in ties, which would have been a mess requiring further run-offs. So a preferential voting system that makes run-offs instant instead of lengthening the election period would definitely be preferable, in my view.

To elaborate on my original point, plurality voting might not seem like much of a problem for an office like Keeper of the Deshret, which is really more administrative and doesn't wield any hard power. But when you think about the office of Pharaoh, it is the chief executive office with enormous executive power -- albeit much of it subject to legislative oversight -- as well as enormous in-game power as WA Delegate. We don't want a situation in which one candidate in a multi-candidate race is elected Pharaoh by a slim plurality, which in reality would mean he or she may only have five or six votes. That's a recipe for divisive politics and for undermining the Pharaoh's legitimacy as our chief executive, which is just asking for frustration, conflict between the executive and the legislature, and ultimately security issues that would be likely to arise from such frustration and conflict.

Edit: Sections 1.3 and 2.3 of the Election Administration Act may also need amended to reflect preferential voting if we go that route, and we probably need to flesh out the confidence vote provisions as well, there are problems there.

[Ridersyl]

Has plurality voting caused a problem in the past?

[Cormac]

Has plurality voting caused a problem in the past?

No, but we did see in the recent multi-candidate Keeper election that if I had not dropped out, there was a distinct possibility -- I would say probability -- that the Keeper was going to be elected with a plurality rather than a majority. That is essentially what got me thinking about this.

When it comes to generating political conflict between the executive and the legislature that could undermine regional security, I don't think we should wait until after it becomes a problem based on the assumption that it never will become a problem. If it does become a problem, waiting until after may be waiting too late. A Pharaoh elected by a slim plurality who may be broadly disliked by the majority is going to be a big problem, if it happens, and we won't be able to do anything about it after the fact.

[The Almighty Jesus Whale]

I don't think anyone disliked fest.

Granted it was pretty inactive, but he was pretty good.

But yes, to solve plurality voting, IRV is a good way to go.

[Cormac]

I don't think anyone disliked fest.

Granted it was pretty inactive, but he was pretty good.

But yes, to solve plurality voting, IRV is a good way to go.

I should note that Festavo's election was not a case of a plurality win. Festavo was elected 11-10 after a 10-10 tie that was broken by Severisen, who was serving as election administrator. 11-10 is a majority, and Ainocrez didn't receive any votes as the third candidate in that election, so while it was by far the most divided election in OFO history it nonetheless doesn't have anything to do with plurality voting.

The OFO has never had a Pharaoh elected only by a plurality, I went back and checked. The closest we came was in January 2015 when there were multiple candidates on the ballot and Tim was elected with nine votes out of seventeen, but that was still 53% of the vote. But I do think the fact that we've come close enough to plurality outcomes, and that we're in an era of more closely contested elections instead of the landslide coronations of the past, emphasizes the need to fix this before it becomes an issue.

[Ridersyl]

After going over the past couple of posts, I've decided I can get on board with a switch to preferential voting.

[Jakker]

From what I've seen, preferential voting does lead to run-offs, so that would be something to keep in mind. Another similar approach would be to say when there are more than two candidates, if no one reaches majority, the lowest voting getting candidates are removed and the top two candidates are voted on for majority.

That could be a little of a simpler approach than potentially going through a ranking system.