You are not logged in. Please login or register.
A thread for discussion of the 2 person election tie scenario, and what potential policy should be put in place for it.
I believe in the past we have talked about having a run-off in the event of a 2 person tie, but that was in the context of 3+ people running. I'm not sure what the best solution for an exact tie would be in a 2 person election. A new vote that would potentially result in another tie? A shared position? Flip of a coin?
Discuss!
A second election should be held if there isn't a clear 50%+1.
+1
I don't think a shared position would be a good solution. The only thing I can think of is what Osprey already said: another election. One where we also inform all the member that there was a tie and that it is very important that they vote. Hopefully this will persuade one or two more people to vote.
-Mischa
I'm up for drawing lots or random number generator.
I agree with Osprey and Mischa, another election.
Another election makes sense to me, too. Not with additional nominations though - straight "A or B". Whilst we've captured the opinions of everyone who voted first time, we can hope for more.
-Euan
So the question is: What happens if a tie keeps happening? How do you please half the site that would be disappointed that the other half's choice is picked? That would suggest more that the site is deeply polarized.
Last edited by Osprey (2014-08-04 21:18:38)
I had that same thought eariler, Osprey. Lol
One way would be that if another election, or insert a number of times for a tie breaking election, resulted in a tie, the GC would have the deciding factor. Possibly.
Seems logical outside of a GC election.
Would it be acceptable to have a coin flip for a perfect 50% for a GC election? That sort of... decision might still not sit well with some.
If a second election was held, and another tie resulted, I see that has having two equally strong candidates. The only fair way I could see it being broken is by making the choice randomly.
I'd like to hear more opinions about a shared position, as well as any additional ideas anyone may have (doesn't matter if they are far out there, let's hear them!).
I am not a fan of a shared position. Not that I think that both of the winners wouldn't get along, but it would take too long to get things done, since everything has to be discussed.
When you have a tie between candidate A and B when there are three candidates, the solution seems simple: new elections where only the two tied winners participate, but in the event of a tie when only two candidates were running, I must admit that I see no other acceptible solution other than new elections (which of course carries the risk of yet another tie). For the reason stated above I'm no fan of shared positions and 'flipping a coin' seems in no way fair to me. I am also not a big fan of having the GC decide, because basically the GC gets to choose which of the two candidates gets the position. And even though whether candidate A or B wins can also very well depend on one single vote, the voting itself is anonymous (that is to say: the voters don't know who the other voters chose).
So although I recognize the potential problem with this, I'd still say: re-elections until a winner comes out on top.
-Mischa
The only problem with re-elections until there is a winner is if you are in constant stalemate. Assuming the same people who voted before will vote again, one of two things are going to happen: Either someone who previously voted will change their vote, or more likely not vote at all, in which case you may as well choose the winner randomly, OR, the tie will occur indefinitely.
I'd rather see one additional election - if that doesn't convince any that didn't vote that they probably should, I don't think any number of elections will bring them to the polling booth. And then, if the vote is still tied, we move to some other form (the two candidates duel, perhaps?).
-Jason
If we are at that point, then we might as well just flip a coin.
Traditionally, runoff or worse even multiple runoff wear of the electorate, declining their number is each round. I do not like to prolong things with a second or third election cycle. I'd rather both candidates pick a number and the monitored random number generator puts the finger of fate of whomever is closest.
Then if there is a random generator, then it should be announced when it is employed for the sake of transparency. As well as the final results. This way the process of developing a consensus between members of either faction can be done.
Obviously a second (or third, fourth, etc.) election has the major weak spot of the results being yet another tie. And it is something that I certainly do not like, but I like the alternatives, which are either chance or the GC deciding even less. But I do agree that after a second elections there shouldn't be a third if this one also results in a tie. I have however no idea what we should do then: as mentioned I am against the alternatives mentioned here. In that case I am the least against a shared position, as Jason mentioned. Because that one then stays the closest to the wishes of the voters.
-Mischa
If there's a second tie, unless one candidate wants to step back to let the other take the role then we should, like good gamers, roll a die. Except it'd be a d2, and digital so it's exactly 50-50, but y'know.
Our forum content is original and user-created, within the scope of fair use. No trademark rights or copyrights are violated.
Currently installed 9 official extensions. Copyright © 2003–2009 PunBB.
Click here to Affiliate or Advertise
