Election results and some statistics

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 8:33 pm

The election results are [url=http://www.neufreistadt.info:3iyv4guh]posted[/url:3iyv4guh] on our web page, along with my remarks on the election results party. Folks in there have asked me to post some other statistics, so here we are:

44 people voted, of which 22 voted within the first 24 hours of polling.

The Borda scores are:
DPU: 82
CSDF: 77
Simplicity: 69
CARE: 36

DPU gets 2 seats, the rest gets 1 seat

The best rank votes were distributed this way:
CARE 9, CSDF 12, DPU 12, Simplicity 11

The second best votes were distributed this way:
CARE 3, CSDF 12, DPU 18, Simplicity 11

The third best votes were distributed this way:
CARE 3, CSDF 17, DPU 10, Simplicity 14

The last rank went this way:
CARE 29, CSDF 3, DPU 4, Simplicity 8

Thanks to everyone who participated.

Aliasi Stonebender · Post by **Aliasi Stonebender** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:04 pm

I think this election has been a fairly clear example of why Borda-count works so nicely. The rank breakdown also shows this; if this was a 'first past the post' race, it'd look like a nearly even deadlock! However, the additional rankings show what I imagine most could predict - the DPU and the CSDF are the 'centrist' parties, that nearly everyone can tolerate with proven track records. Simplicity and CARE are the hot young Turks, although Simplicity seems to be marginally more tolerated.

This doesn't precisely show, with only five seats; if the RA had grown to seven seats it would have been much more clear.

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sat Jan 20, 2007 11:09 pm

Aliasi --

My understanding from FR is that a 7 seat RA would have broken down 2-2-2-1. A 9 seat RA is even more interesting -- 3-3-2-1. Therefore, I think that your point is well-taken, but not completely revealed, even on the Borda-Count, until we have a nine seat division.

The even more interesting factor in this election is that CARE received fewer first-preference votes (9) than Michel claimed as members (14). (In fact, CARE received only 12 first and second place votes.) This is, I think, unique in the history of the CDS. Parties can usually count on the full support of their members and on some additional nonpartisan support.

Also, as I understand it, CARE recommended that its members vote in the following order: CARE;DPU;SP;CSDF. Because the CSDF only received 3 last place votes (the lowest of the four parties), this indicates that even the CARE members who support CARE broke ranks from its leadership on the vote recommendation.

As Michel was fond of saying before the election:

[quote:ee26yrzy]Beathan,

The fact that you disagree with or dislike CARE's specific policies does not come as news or as a shock to me. We are not seeking your personal approval. We'll let the citizens decide.[/quote:ee26yrzy]

Now the citizens have decided. I think that the moderate but responsive policies of the DPU/CSDF RA have been resoundingly supported. The JA has been resoundingly rejected. The arguments made by the Simplicity Party have not been sweepingly accepted, but the SP did respectably for a new party, so those arguments cannot be said to have been rejected. However, the same is not true of CARE. As pointed out by a CARE member -- the results appear to be a categorical rejection of CARE as the party of lawyer supremacy. The CDS just does not want to have a professional elite class built into our system of government.

Beathan

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:41 am

Whatever..... I really am tired of you.... Go practice your debating skills on someone else...

Patroklus Murakami · Post by **Patroklus Murakami** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 2:49 am

Thanks to FR for his work in setting up the electronic voting system and for returning the results and thanks to the voters for returning a CSDF member to the RA. I hope I'll live up to the splendid example that Jon and Moon set in the previous session.

Congratulations to the DPU for their third consecutive election victory. I'm sure that a minority government will be a different and interesting proposition from previous years but I look forward to working with Justice and Claude (and Michel and Publius too).

michelmanen · Post by **michelmanen** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 3:09 am

Same to you Pat.

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:02 am

Congratulations to the four parties for his participation and to the DPU for their victory.

To follow Aliasi's comment on a deadlock with another method.

Just to check the effect of the Borda count, I've just calculate what would had happened if our first choice would be our only vote, and then I've assignated the seats following the D'Hont and Sainte-LaguÃ« methods to find that with this results, there's no difference between them for 5, 7 o 9 seats

Given a DPU 12, CSDF 12, SP 11 and CARE 9 results, with five seats we would have 1 seat to each faction, and we would have a draw between DPU and CDSF to assign the fifth (and no way in the Constitution to untie it; perhaps, by analogy, we could use the rock, scissors and paper method).

With 7 seats, we have DPU 2, CDSF 2, SP 2 and CARE 1. With 9 seats, we get two seats for each faction and, again, a draw for the ninth.

Although, from a statistical point of view, is more difficult to have a tie with the Borda count (and it will become even more difficult as our population grows), as we move around the 100 -2000 votes figures it's possible to have a tie between two or more factions, and we need some way to break it.

Oni Jiutai · Post by **Oni Jiutai** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 4:52 am

Congratulations, Everybody. And best of luck.

Flyingroc Chung · Post by **Flyingroc Chung** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:08 am

[quote="Fernando Book":1g2rlofz]Although, from a statistical point of view, is more difficult to have a tie with the Borda count (and it will become even more difficult as our population grows), as we move around the 100 -2000 votes figures it's possible to have a tie between two or more factions, and we need some way to break it.[/quote:1g2rlofz]

Fernando, the Constitution actually provides for a way to break the tie:

"In the event of a Borda count tie between two or more factions, the tie will be broken by one (in the event of a two way tie) or more (in the case of a three or more way tie) best of three games of Rock,Paper, Scissors among the faction heads/founders."

Rock paper scissors; it's silly, I know. What we don't have currently is what to do with a tie in the borda counts of the faction members. This time we have a tie between Claude and Justice for LRA. If the CSDF got a second seat, they would ave ad a tie for their second seat as well.

As to the faction seat allocation, the borda count allocation is the same as the allocation if we take only the first rank distribution. It is also the same for 7 seats 2-2-2-1. But it *will* be different for 9 seats. Borda-count will be 3-3-2-1, while the first-rank allocation will be 3-2-2-2.

Claude Desmoulins · Post by **Claude Desmoulins** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:24 am

[quote="Patroklus Murakami":265aloh7]

Congratulations to the DPU for their third consecutive election victory. I'm sure that a minority government will be a different and interesting proposition from previous years but I look forward to working with Justice and Claude (and Michel and Diderot too).[/quote:265aloh7]

Actually, the DPU government from the January 2006 electiosn was also minority. DPU had two seats. MPP had one. The old SDF had 2.

Sleazy_Writer · Post by **Sleazy_Writer** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:55 am

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":glfoixbu]Rock paper scissors; it's silly, I know. :-)[/quote:glfoixbu]
heheh - I sort of assumed that, even though it's silly, that it was still scientifically responsible :-)

Fernando Book · Post by **Fernando Book** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 8:56 am

[quote="Flyingroc Chung":1q8uebpq]
Fernando, the Constitution actually provides for a way to break the tie:

"In the event of a Borda count tie between two or more factions, the tie will be broken by one (in the event of a two way tie) or more (in the case of a three or more way tie) best of three games of Rock,Paper, Scissors among the faction heads/founders."[/quote:1q8uebpq]

FR, it's a debatable question, as your quote is, given its place in the Constitution, a way to break the tie in case there's one when designating the LRA, but actually it says nothing about the way to assign a disputed seat between two factions with the same Borda count.

Ranma Tardis · Post by **Ranma Tardis** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:17 am

I point out that 35.3 percent of the population did not bother to vote at all. There is just no excuse for this sort of behavior. Voting is quick and easy and nobody knows how you voted.
It is just like real life where most people do not have the slightest consideration for others. Now these very non voting people are going to cause the most amount of trouble.
If a citizen can not do their duty and vote what can they be counted on doing? Perhaps their should be a way for citizens to disagree with the voting options and abstain from actual voting but still show they wanted to vote but did not like the choices.
How can we increase the involvement of citizens? A special tax on those who do not vote perhaps?

Beathan · Post by **Beathan** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:35 am

Ranma --

I disagree with your post. There might be many good reasons for not voting. For instance, a person might want to be in the CDS because she believes that democratic government is always better for its citizens than are the other alternatives. However, that same person might not have sufficient information to make vote competently. In such case, I think that the person should be allowed to live, without penalty, in the democratic community but should be applauded, not criticized, for having the wisdom not to vote blindly.

Second, a person might like the CDS for all sort of different reasons, but might also find all four political party platforms distasteful. In such case, the person cannot, without compromise to personal commitments, support any party. Not voting under such circumstances also seems appropriate.

A 66% voter turnout is very respectable. Additionally, when trying to make contact with our citizens during the election, I noted that several people on the list were no longer in SL -- which means that the real voter turnout was higher than listed.

In RL, elections with extremely high voter turnout are often suspect. There tends to be some coercion in such elections. The coercion might just be a penalty for not voting, as you propose. However, it is a small step from penalizing not voting to penalizing voting wrongly (voting against the ruling party). This is a road we should not even look down.

Beathan

Jon Seattle · Post by **Jon Seattle** » Sun Jan 21, 2007 10:51 am

Warm congratulations to everyone who won a seat in the RA. CSDF decided to put Pat first in our candidate list and so it was not a surprise that he won. We feel he is the right person to represent the CSDF.

After the turmoil of this past session, Moon and I both decided we could do better service to the community by focusing on implementing the new Guild proposal and making the CDS an attractive place for those who are or want to become skilled builders and designers. We will both remain active in CSDF politics, but our main goal will be to give the CDS the tools it needs to continue to expand and base that expansion on the labor of its own citizens.