Tweet
Originally posted by Troll King
That's not a majority. Look up "majority" in the dictionary before you lecture me on my logic. You have 13 people voting for while a total of 17 voted against. A "majority" is considered to be anything more than 50% and 13 out of 17 is not. What we have instead was a minority winner.
Because of the way the vote was set up there was an inherent bias towards the old map. My point was that more people wanted change than not. Sticking with the old map because there was no clear cut replacement was the only option they could take, BUT, it also calls for further follow up action because it was clear that a majority wanted some kind of change. What happened instead was that 6 months went by with the status quo.
If you take a look at countries that use the parliamentry system of government, a party that gets the most seats wins but is what is called a minority government. That means that they won the election but in theory cannot do things because any laws they try to pass will be voted down in parliament by the other seats unless they can manage to get another party to support them. The result is usually another election if that doesn't work out.
In our case, we have a minority map but there was no real public concensus to stay with the current map.
What if, for example, the results were as follows:
Out of 30 votes:
10 for map 1
8 for map 2
7 for map 3
5 for map 4
The map that received the most votes is map 1 (this is, by the way NOT considered to be a majority) but a total of 20 to 10 voted against map 1. Can you successfully argue that map 1 won a clear majority?
Now, as far as how to run the voting procedure, instead of using a playoff style voting where maps are eliminated after each round, why don't we use the system used by most sports leagues to vote for MVP awards or for Hall of Fame inductions?
What they do is, instead of having a straight vote, give the voters a ballot to vote for their first, second, and third choices. For example, a basketball voter might place Tim Duncan first, Jason Kidd second and Shaq O'Neill third. In the NBA method, a first place vote gets 10 points, second gets 7 points, 5 for third, and so on. When the ballots are counted they add the total number of points earned per player. For example, if Tim Duncan received 30 first place votes, 10 second place votes and 5 third place votes, he would get:
30 * 10 + 10 * 7 + 5 * 5 = 395 points.
The player with the most points would win.
Now, applying this to TW maps, we could set up a ballot to vote for first, second (and third, depending on how many candidates there are) choice. With 4 or 5 candidates, it would make sense just to have 2 spots. A first place vote would receive 3 points and a second place vote would receives 2 points. When voting, players would select their number 1 choice and then their number 2 choice. This wouldn't be very difficult to calculate a winner and be the easiest method to run, because you'd only have to vote once while a playoff style vote would have multiple rounds where people have to log in several times to vote.
That's not a majority. Look up "majority" in the dictionary before you lecture me on my logic. You have 13 people voting for while a total of 17 voted against. A "majority" is considered to be anything more than 50% and 13 out of 17 is not. What we have instead was a minority winner.
Because of the way the vote was set up there was an inherent bias towards the old map. My point was that more people wanted change than not. Sticking with the old map because there was no clear cut replacement was the only option they could take, BUT, it also calls for further follow up action because it was clear that a majority wanted some kind of change. What happened instead was that 6 months went by with the status quo.
If you take a look at countries that use the parliamentry system of government, a party that gets the most seats wins but is what is called a minority government. That means that they won the election but in theory cannot do things because any laws they try to pass will be voted down in parliament by the other seats unless they can manage to get another party to support them. The result is usually another election if that doesn't work out.
In our case, we have a minority map but there was no real public concensus to stay with the current map.
What if, for example, the results were as follows:
Out of 30 votes:
10 for map 1
8 for map 2
7 for map 3
5 for map 4
The map that received the most votes is map 1 (this is, by the way NOT considered to be a majority) but a total of 20 to 10 voted against map 1. Can you successfully argue that map 1 won a clear majority?
Now, as far as how to run the voting procedure, instead of using a playoff style voting where maps are eliminated after each round, why don't we use the system used by most sports leagues to vote for MVP awards or for Hall of Fame inductions?
What they do is, instead of having a straight vote, give the voters a ballot to vote for their first, second, and third choices. For example, a basketball voter might place Tim Duncan first, Jason Kidd second and Shaq O'Neill third. In the NBA method, a first place vote gets 10 points, second gets 7 points, 5 for third, and so on. When the ballots are counted they add the total number of points earned per player. For example, if Tim Duncan received 30 first place votes, 10 second place votes and 5 third place votes, he would get:
30 * 10 + 10 * 7 + 5 * 5 = 395 points.
The player with the most points would win.
Now, applying this to TW maps, we could set up a ballot to vote for first, second (and third, depending on how many candidates there are) choice. With 4 or 5 candidates, it would make sense just to have 2 spots. A first place vote would receive 3 points and a second place vote would receives 2 points. When voting, players would select their number 1 choice and then their number 2 choice. This wouldn't be very difficult to calculate a winner and be the easiest method to run, because you'd only have to vote once while a playoff style vote would have multiple rounds where people have to log in several times to vote.
Comment