The Democratic Process

First, we had nominations, which seemed largely pointless considering the small voting pool and all the bandwagons. plus even with as little as one nomination, a unit would be up for voting. So I ditched the nominations and we went straight to voting for the next rounds.

But now, a different problem occurs. Polls suddenly become eerily close. Most notably Round 5 - Matthew (5/14, 36%) can hardly be called a majority. However, I don't like changing the process out of nowhere, especially since it would make the list inconsistent.

So, three options...and which one will be picked will be chosen by a vote!

#1 - keep the process as it is, and finish it
#2 - get a "more democratic" process, and use it to finish the rest of the list
#3 - get a "more democratic" process, and redo the entire list with it (perhaps skipping Marcus, heh)

Mekkah wrote:First, we had nominations, which seemed largely pointless considering the small voting pool and all the bandwagons. plus even with as little as one nomination, a unit would be up for voting. So I ditched the nominations and we went straight to voting for the next rounds.

But now, a different problem occurs. Polls suddenly become eerily close. Most notably Round 5 - Matthew (5/14, 36%) can hardly be called a majority. However, I don't like changing the process out of nowhere, especially since it would make the list inconsistent.

So, three options...and which one will be picked will be chosen by a vote!

#1 - keep the process as it is, and finish it
#2 - get a "more democratic" process, and use it to finish the rest of the list
#3 - get a "more democratic" process, and redo the entire list with it (perhaps skipping Marcus, heh)

So, would #2 be more like how some parties (in Canada anyway) deal with selecting a leader? Basically, a vote goes through, and out of 5 candidates the 2 with the fewest votes get dropped, then the top 3 go. If that doesn't result in someone getting >50% of the votes, then the 3rd guy is dropped. Then it should (hopefully) result in a majority for someone.

I vote #3 if it is anything remotely like that. I mean, sure, I haven't voted at all, but just because I haven't played the game and don't feel right voting for best units doesn't mean I'm uninterested in discussing the voting process itself.

You could easily skip Raven, though, based on the votes. I mean, it's not a 2/3s majority, so you can't pass an amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America, but Raven was over 50% anyway.

I have no recommendations for Serra and Priscilla. Serra didn't even get any votes in round 3.

What exactly the new process would be will be discussed later. The difference between #2 and #3 is that in #2, we keep the current list as it is and continue to use the new (agreed upon) process for Round 7 and further, while with #3, we start pretty much from the beginning with the list.

The new system as proposed by Narga could result in me being forced to vote for someone other than Hector, so I must vote for option #1.

<@Cheetah7071> Mekkah, I'll vote for whichever option birngs Oswin highest
<~Mekkah> that would be #4 - oswin for top tier

Voting #4

#3 is the only option that makes sense.

I'd need to know what the new process would be before deciding if I'd want to go with it. As it is, I'm fine with the way things have been going.

As a more serious vote, I'd be in support of runoff voting starting form the beginning again

Voting for #3.

#3 is obvious imo just for consistency. In the end it wastes less time to be consistent. We could even apply the process to another game, though the GBA ones are no good unless we pick a specific route (Ilia, Ephraim, etc.). Or we could work on refining the process for the routed ones. I think this is a very interesting process.

(My vote obviously assumes the 'more democratic' process is preferable to what we have now.)

I'm also a fan of IRV for this. A lot of us are voting with 'you can only vote for one unit per round' in mind, which makes quite a bit of a difference, especially as we move into greyer areas with more stalemates.

Red Fox of Fire wrote:I'd need to know what the new process would be before deciding if I'd want to go with it.

Yeah, there's not much point on voting on something if we don't know what it'll be. The idea Narga posted seems fine, if a bit time-consuming.

Okay, so it's a minor majority (lol) for #3...now, a process. Ideas I have:

1. Back to nominations, but with a minimum amount of nominations (# or %?)
2. Requiring a certain % of votes. If not acquired, only the top# are done in a revote. Prolly gives nearly the same results as #1.

Someone else ideas?

I maintain that votes should be kept anonymous to avoid a bandwagon effect. We can do that by PMing Mekkah the votes.

What Vykan said, except with IRV. Note that I, like Narga, am just commenting on the system since I can't really be authoritative for rankings on a game I played 1.5 times.

I think we should redo the list using process 3, except we can skip Marcus and Raven because they are clear majorities.

I think if there is a majority for any position, then we can skip the runoff, but we should do the runoff if there is a plurality.