[DRAFT] Um.... This Was Totally Democratic!

[Chan Island]

I have to say, almost 2 years since the 2016 US election and I'm surprised no issue about this aspect of FTPT come up.

BTW, this situation has happened in Britain too, so it's not just an electoral college unique affair.

I decided 7000 was a good number because it's small enough to be considered not so noticeable but big enough that people would complain.

...........................

The latest legislative elections were extremely close, and bitterly contested. As morning dawned the day after the election it was clear: your party had won the election.... despite getting 7000 less votes than the largest opposition party. This was because opposition politicians often won with huge majorities of votes, while your own straddled to victory with relatively few votes more than their runner-up. Challenges to your legitimacy sprung up faster than some constituencies took to count their votes.

validity: has a legislature
uses First Past the Post as an electoral system

[option] "This is a scandal!" shouts @@RANDOMNAME@@, one of the millions of opposition party voters who has taken to calling themselves 'one of the 7000'. "Our party's lawmakers were elected on average with much bigger majorities than yours were, yet because your voters are more spread out you ended up stealing the election. I say if we are going to be using a majoritarian voting system, at least actually force a majority, or have another election. One we'll win for sure!"
[effect] the fourth election this year is looking particularly exciting

[option] "Relax, this is just democracy at work..." says blasé MP @@RANDOMNAME@@, who won with a majority of 8. "Everybody knew the rules before the election. You go to the polls, you vote, and then whoever gets the most votes wins. Rinse and repeat across all of the constituencies. Just because the other party's winners tended to get bigger majorities than our people did doesn't mean you have to penalise the voters who supported us. I say we get on with the job of governing this great nation, and maybe next time the opposition can be a bit smarter about where they allocate 7001 voters."
[effect] increasingly unrepresentative politicians wonder why the voters are angry

[option] "How about we use a different voting system!" Beams @@RANDOMNAME@@, the newly-elected MP for that one town that was always a bit politically wacko. "Under a proportional system, we would bypass any chance of these sorts of unfair results. Of course, it would mean lots of expenses in educating people how to vote for more than one person, and we wouldn't have a majority government again, but we like democracy here, right?"
[effect] @@LEADER@@'s party and the "We hate @@LEADER@@ party" are negotiating a coalition agreement

[Trotterdam]

#360 Electile Dysfunction
#524 Something Is Rotten in the State of @@NAME@@
#775 Affirmative Election?

These don't specifically use the "less-popular candidate wins" scenario, but they do discuss proportional voting and electoral districts, covering the major positions on those subjects.

If you do want to try to compete, then at least attempt a candid dicussion on the arguments for and against using voting districts, rather than suggesting that they exist solely for the benefit of corrupt politicians. (I disapprove of voting districts, mind you. But their supporters do claim actual advantages, which I just happen to disagree with.)

A discussion on the subject by me:
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28084710#p28084710
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28084909#p28084909
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085222#p28085222
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085555#p28085555
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085819#p28085819
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28086058#p28086058
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28086305#p28086305

Also, decide what you're talking about. Are you addressing elections for single positions (like @@LEADER@@), or elections for members of a large parliament? Proportional voting only makes sense as an answer for the latter, not the former. The former can be done with or without grouping votes by electoral district, and with or without a first-past-the-post system, but these are two separate and unrelated questions. (The main benefit of moving away from a first-past-the-post system is not giving everyone in the nation an equal voice, but rather avoiding a two-party state where everyone is scared of voting for third parties because it'll split the vote. In the above discussion, even the person trying to argue in favor of the electoral college system agreed we should move away from first-past-the-post.)

[The Official United Nations]

You might also want the issue's description to clarify why the player won despite less votes. If the issue is location differences in voting, then say so.

If there aren't many issues where the winning side gets less votes, it might be different enough for its own issue. That depends on the situation represented.

[Chan Island]

#360 Electile Dysfunction
#524 Something Is Rotten in the State of @@NAME@@
#775 Affirmative Election?

These don't specifically use the "less-popular candidate wins" scenario, but they do discuss proportional voting and electoral districts, covering the major positions on those subjects.

I looked at those specifically when drawing up the idea for this idea, just to be sure the specific angle I was taking wasn't used up.

If you do want to try to compete, then at least attempt a candid dicussion on the arguments for and against using voting districts, rather than suggesting that they exist solely for the benefit of corrupt politicians. (I disapprove of voting districts, mind you. But their supporters do claim actual advantages, which I just happen to disagree with.)

A discussion on the subject by me:
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28084710#p28084710
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28084909#p28084909
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085222#p28085222
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085555#p28085555
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28085819#p28085819
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28086058#p28086058
http://www.nationstates.net/region=the_galactic_federacy/page=display_region_rmb?postid=28086305#p28086305

I actually agree with what you say there, and have considered many of these same discussions. Active, paying member of the Electoral Reform Society and al of that even, so I'm probably not the person the most sympathetic to that position. However, I will bear this in mind.

Also, decide what you're talking about. Are you addressing elections for single positions (like @@LEADER@@), or elections for members of a large parliament? Proportional voting only makes sense as an answer for the latter, not the former. The former can be done with or without grouping votes by electoral district, and with or without a first-past-the-post system, but these are two separate and unrelated questions. (The main benefit of moving away from a first-past-the-post system is not giving everyone in the nation an equal voice, but rather avoiding a two-party state where everyone is scared of voting for third parties because it'll split the vote. In the above discussion, even the person trying to argue in favor of the electoral college system agreed we should move away from first-past-the-post.)

I actually do know about these ones. To answer it:

Elections for members of a large parliament.

This is because the US electoral college is pretty anomalous even for countries that use First Past the Post. Most countries that use the system are instead parliamentary systems where each politician is elected to represent one district. However, even that doesn't make the exact scenario impossible, like in the UK in 1951.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Ki ... tion,_1951

You might also want the issue's description to clarify why the player won despite less votes. If the issue is location differences in voting, then say so.

If there aren't many issues where the winning side gets less votes, it might be different enough for its own issue. That depends on the situation represented.

I put that in the first option, but I'll change the description to make it clearer.

[Australian rePublic]

Option 2- don't make assumptions about how many electorates there are.

[Trotterdam]

#360 Electile Dysfunction
#524 Something Is Rotten in the State of @@NAME@@
#775 Affirmative Election?

These don't specifically use the "less-popular candidate wins" scenario, but they do discuss proportional voting and electoral districts, covering the major positions on those subjects.

I looked at those specifically when drawing up the idea for this idea, just to be sure the specific angle I was taking wasn't used up.

But #524 is also about electoral districts causing weird results, which sounds pretty similar to me.

The biggest problem, though, is the unoriginality of the options. "Use districts, use proportional voting, or crazy option that will never work"? Yeah, it's been done.

Also, decide what you're talking about. Are you addressing elections for single positions (like @@LEADER@@), or elections for members of a large parliament? Proportional voting only makes sense as an answer for the latter, not the former. The former can be done with or without grouping votes by electoral district, and with or without a first-past-the-post system, but these are two separate and unrelated questions. (The main benefit of moving away from a first-past-the-post system is not giving everyone in the nation an equal voice, but rather avoiding a two-party state where everyone is scared of voting for third parties because it'll split the vote. In the above discussion, even the person trying to argue in favor of the electoral college system agreed we should move away from first-past-the-post.)

I actually do know about these ones. To answer it:

Elections for members of a large parliament.

Ah, on rereading the issue, I see that this is correct and you were talking about that all along

I guess I misread because the situation reminded me of the whole Donald/Hillary thing, where Hillary got more votes nationwide but Trump won in the electoral college.

[Chan Island]

Option 2- don't make assumptions about how many electorates there are.

I chose a number that was already put in place in an earlier issue. But you're right, I can see that becoming a big point of contention if implemented like that, so reference removed.

I looked at those specifically when drawing up the idea for this idea, just to be sure the specific angle I was taking wasn't used up.

But #524 is also about electoral districts causing weird results, which sounds pretty similar to me.

The biggest problem, though, is the unoriginality of the options. "Use districts, use proportional voting, or crazy option that will never work"? Yeah, it's been done.

I actually do know about these ones. To answer it:

Elections for members of a large parliament.

Ah, on rereading the issue, I see that this is correct and you were talking about that all along

I guess I misread because the situation reminded me of the whole Donald/Hillary thing, where Hillary got more votes nationwide but Trump won in the electoral college.

Don't worry, the Donald/Hillary thing was planted because literally the first thing I typed was my surprise that nobody has tackled it yet after that result.

Anyway, the rest of that does present quite the conundrum. Perhaps the options could be about some kind of an unofficial coalition to rectify the anomalous result? Or maybe have a go at mentioning recounts?

Option 2 would have to stay no matter what, and I'm pretty inclined to have it stay pretty similar to what is already there, and option 3 is just a natural response to the situation I wish to fundamentally address. But what to do with option 1 (and any hypothetical 4, 5 or 6)... now that is the tricky part....

I'll have to think about it. Anybody have any ideas?

[Trotterdam]

Or maybe have a go at mentioning recounts?

Recounts seem like a really bad way to address this problem. Chances are, the discrepancy is real, and won't go away no matter how often you double-check it.

Revotes (which you currently have as option 1) are slightly more likely to work, since people might not vote exactly the same way (some might have changed their opinion as a result of the election news coverage, some people will have become more motivated to vote after seeing how close the last election was, other people will lose interest in voting a second time because they're tired of it), and those small changes might be enough to fix the paradox if you're lucky, but still, people voted the way they did for a reason, so you can't expect a very different result.

Option 2 would have to stay no matter what,

I think option 2 needs to have a better argument pointing out advantages of electoral districts, rather than "well, it benefitted us this time and it's too much effort to change, so just ignore it".

Unfortunately I can't really help you much with explaining these advantages because I disagree with them.

and option 3 is just a natural response to the situation I wish to fundamentally address

That's a problem. If there's only one answer you consider a "natural response", it suggests some bias in your writing.

I don't actually disagree with your bias, but issues need to be written from a neutral perspective to present a more interesting choice.

[Chan Island]

Or maybe have a go at mentioning recounts?

Recounts seem like a really bad way to address this problem. Chances are, the discrepancy is real, and won't go away no matter how often you double-check it.

Revotes (which you currently have as option 1) are slightly more likely to work, since people might not vote exactly the same way (some might have changed their opinion as a result of the election news coverage, some people will have become more motivated to vote after seeing how close the last election was, other people will lose interest in voting a second time because they're tired of it), and those small changes might be enough to fix the paradox if you're lucky, but still, people voted the way they did for a reason, so you can't expect a very different result.

Option 2 would have to stay no matter what,

I think option 2 needs to have a better argument pointing out advantages of electoral districts, rather than "well, it benefitted us this time and it's too much effort to change, so just ignore it".

Unfortunately I can't really help you much with explaining these advantages because I disagree with them.

and option 3 is just a natural response to the situation I wish to fundamentally address

That's a problem. If there's only one answer you consider a "natural response", it suggests some bias in your writing.

I don't actually disagree with your bias, but issues need to be written from a neutral perspective to present a more interesting choice.

Completely agree with the first aspect you mentioned, though the drawback of revotes was I feel addressed in the draft.

For option 2, I can maybe have the person instead talk about how each individual town and district got the representative it wanted? Then say that it doesn't matter if, on the grand national scale it doesn't matter too much which party ended up getting more seats, because each individual seat was an isolated contest in and of itself?

What I meant with option 3 is that it is a natural response, not necessarily that it was the only one. Option 2 is very much a natural response too, based off current politics.