The World Cup Discussion Thread (OOC, Version IV)

[Sarzonia]

Why not implement a run-off in the event of a tie vote between two distinct bids?

In that case, you would eliminate the option to abstain except for the host bidders and the option to re-open bids, thus requiring each bid to receive a definite up or down vote. If it's tied after that, then the president or their designee breaks the tie if they haven't already voted or if they aren't a bidder.

In the rare case of a run-off election still being level, you can re-open bids.

[Alasdair I Frosticus]

Feeling slightly embarrassed about forgetting to vote...

I'm on board with Legalese's proposed amendment, and am happy to formally second it to enable it to go forward to a vote.

[Squidroidia]

Kinda agree with Sarz. The fact that this came so close could have forced the WCC into deadlock and more drama could occur.

The problem I have with this vote is that the losing bid had their votes removed even though the winning bid was going to win because there were only 2 bids. I know it wasn't a majority, but it was clear that the winner was already known by the Round 1 results. I get why they didn't choose to eliminate the re-open bids vote or the abstaining votes (That could have led to even more deadlock) but eliminating the losing bid in a 2 bid vote changed nothing.

Also agree with Legal's proposal.

[Banija]

As for removing Re-Open Nominations, the President doesn't have the power to remove it if there are rounds remaining. Constitution explicitly States that option cannot be removed in the early rounds of voting.

Personally, I think Presidential tiebreak is the cleanest route here for a tiebreaker, but tallying up the EWCC votes out of those who already voted works as well.

Aa for a runoff, that couldn't happen under current rules because RoN cannot be eliminated in the early rounds.

[Omerica]

Well, I feel like a total muppet right now. I was never going to preference the winning bid, so I can’t help be feel like my failure to vote for the losing bid changed the outcome…

And since that could’ve just as easily caused a deadlock scenario, I will support Legal’s constitutional amendment.

---

The problem I have with this vote is that the losing bid had their votes removed even though the winning bid was going to win because there were only 2 bids. I know it wasn't a majority, but it was clear that the winner was already known by the Round 1 results. I get why they didn't choose to eliminate the re-open bids vote or the abstaining votes (That could have led to even more deadlock) but eliminating the losing bid in a 2 bid vote changed nothing.

EQS merely followed the correct constitutional counting procedure. The winning bid still needed to collect at least one second preference to win the vote, so it was effectively a forgone conclusion, but actually conducting the second count put the result beyond all doubt.

[Krytenia]

I do feel sorry for Valanora and Chromatika's bid being eliminated despite being only two votes short of an overall majority.

I may well draft an amendment this evening, effectively on the lines of introducing an IR vote for bids, with the top two (or only two, if applicable) bids going forward with RON and counting second preferences, as well as introducing the caveat that RON can be removed from the vote if the second round produces no majority and RON is in last place.

[Strike]

The winning bid still needed to collect at least one second preference to win the vote, so it was effectively a forgone conclusion, but actually conducting the second count put the result beyond all doubt.

Actually this isn't true, if anything it cast more doubt on the situation.

Bid A had 17 Votes
Bid B had 16 Votes

Neither had the required 18 for a majority of the votes.

After removing Bid B from contention (That is, taking any vote that had voted for Bid B, making it null and void, then replacing that vote with the second choice on those ballots), Bid A gained only 12 votes. That means that only 12 of the 16 voters who supported Bid B were supportive of Bid A. While this vote was not tied, if it were, then it may have gone entirely to second preferences. What you dont see in the total is the number of votes for Bid A that had Bid B as a second preference. That number very well could have been 13 or higher.

[Omerica]

The winning bid still needed to collect at least one second preference to win the vote, so it was effectively a forgone conclusion, but actually conducting the second count put the result beyond all doubt.

Actually this isn't true, if anything it cast more doubt on the situation.

Under the provisions of the constitution, Bid A unambiguously won. There is no doubt to be had over that fact.

What we can doubt over is whether our voting system is fit for purpose.

[Farfadillis]

The winning bid still needed to collect at least one second preference to win the vote, so it was effectively a forgone conclusion, but actually conducting the second count put the result beyond all doubt.

Actually this isn't true, if anything it cast more doubt on the situation.

Bid A had 17 Votes
Bid B had 16 Votes

Neither had the required 18 for a majority of the votes.

After removing Bid B from contention (That is, taking any vote that had voted for Bid B, making it null and void, then replacing that vote with the second choice on those ballots), Bid A gained only 12 votes. That means that only 12 of the 16 voters who supported Bid B were supportive of Bid A. While this vote was not tied, if it were, then it may have gone entirely to second preferences. What you dont see in the total is the number of votes for Bid A that had Bid B as a second preference. That number very well could have been 13 or higher.

This might be something worth looking into, though it could increase the burden on the Prez and VP. It directly addresses the issue you bring up.

[Legalese]

Worth noting that our voting system is trying to do multiple things at once, which is why it gets complicated:

1) Pick a winner by majority vote, by taking multiple rounds to do so if needed (i.e., instant runoff voting)
2) Ensure there's an option to reject all bids, and execute it if that option is preferred to the last bid left standing

2 exists in part to ensure that an otherwise uncontested bid doesn't simply win without a vote, but also deals with the fact that you'll have a mix of voters that will either a) prefer one bid over another, but not consider any of the bids so bad that they should be rejected entirely if they're the only option; b) prefer one bid over the others, and think at least one or more of the others should not be accepted even if their preferred choice is eliminated; or c) dislike all of the bids and think they all should be rejected. If there's enough b and c voters that prefer rejecting them all over the bid remaining after a runoff round or two, then it's not going with the voice of the voters to give the win to that bid, which is why that option can't be eliminated by anything but a bid reaching a majority of votes.

By my reckoning, there's a few ways to deal with it all:
1) Leave things as they are, adding in the deadlock resolution amendment, and accept it may take a long explanation any time a close vote comes up where the option to reject all bids is present.
2) Get rid of the option to reject all bids and go to pure instant runoff. Could possibly put a reject option in for a vote where a bid is otherwise contested. The downside is that if you like disapproving of everything, you may also disapprove of this.
3) Keep the voting the same, but tweak the counting to get the reject all bids option out of the mix earlier. That could work like this:

- Count all first preference, determine if any option has a majority. If so, that bid/option wins.
- If not, take each bid, and put it up just against the option to reject all bids, taking the higher preference on each ballot cast. If any bid loses to reject all bids on their head-to-head, that bid is eliminated. If this leaves any bids left, the option to reject is eliminated, as any bid left is considered preferable by the voters to rejecting them all.
- If there's not a winner yet, start with the runoff counting, starting by reallocating first preference votes from eliminated bids. If no winner is found, continue with eliminating the bottom vote getter and reallocate. Repeat until there's a winner.
- If there's a deadlock at any point, do the thing I've proposed (extend voting, then EWCC if that doesn't work, then Pres/first up in Pres order who doesn't have a bidding conflict breaks the deadlock)

Basically, this determines if the reject all bids option would win against everyone, and if it doesn't, it gets out of the way for the rest of the counting.

[Savojarna]

I like Legalese's third suggestion, although I do fear it may get a bit extensive for the vote-counters. But aside from that, I think it's a very good idea.

[Krytenia]

Here's my draft proposal:

1.5 Elections
1.5.1 Presidential and Vice-Presidential Elections
Members of the WCC shall ballot for President and Vice President after the nominees have been determined. Each voter's ballot is a list of any number of nominees in order of preference for the office of President.
i) Initial count. The designated vote collector counts the first eligible preference on each ballot. If one nominee is named as the first preference on a majority of all ballots cast, they shall become President.
ii) Elimination and reallocation. Otherwise, the remaining nominee(s) with the fewest number of ballots are eliminated from consideration. Their ballots are reallocated to the nominee listed with the highest preference who is still under consideration.
iii) Recounting. After reallocation, the ballots are again counted. If a nominee receives a majority of the ballots after any recount, they shall become President.
iv) Additional recounts as needed. Otherwise, repeat the Step 2 and 3 process of elimination and reallocation until either one candidate receives a majority or there is only one candidate remaining, who then becomes President.
v) Vice-President. To determine the Vice President, start again with all ballots being cast for their first preferences. Treat the newly-elected President as eliminated, reallocate their ballots, and count. Then continue as above until a Vice-President is elected.
vi) Deadlock. If all remaining uneliminated nominees have the same number of votes at any stage, eliminate the nominee(s) with the smallest number of first preferences on all ballots and reallocate as above. Should all such nominees still be tied, use second-, third, and lower preferences in order until a difference is found to eliminate the lowest.
vii) One nominee. If there is only one nominee, no ballot is required. They become President without an election.

1.5.2 Electing WCC Tournament Hosts
Members of the WCC or EWCC, as applicable, shall vote for a tournament host after the valid bids have been determined. Each voter's ballot is a list of any number of nominees in order of preference to host the tournament, plus the option to re-open bids.
i) Initial count. The designated vote collector counts the first eligible preference on each ballot. If one bid is named as the first preference on a majority of all ballots cast, they shall be elected as hosts. If the option to re-open bids receives a majority, no bid shall be elected and the host bidding process shall be restarted.
ii) Second round. Otherwise, any votes for a bid that failed to finish first or second in the bidding are reallocated to the option listed, with the highest preference who is still under consideration. If a tie for first or second place occurs, all bids tying for this position are put forward to the second round. The option to re-open nominations will also be put forward, regardless of the number of votes this option receives. After reallocation, the ballots are again counted. If a bid receives a majority of the ballots after reallocation, they shall be elected as hosts. If the option to re-open bids receives a majority, no bid shall be elected and the host bidding process shall be restarted.
iii) Third round. Should the second round consist of three or more options, and no majority is reached at this point, a third round shall take place consisting of the two options receiving the most votes in the second round. In the event of a tie for first or second place at this stage which would otherwise mean more than two options going forward, ties are broken according to the deadlock rules outlined below. Votes for eliminated options are reallocated to the option with the highest preference which is still under consideration. After reallocation, the ballots are again counted. If a bid receives a majority of the ballots after reallocation, they shall be elected as hosts. If both options are tied, the tie is broken according to the deadlock rules outlined below.
iv) Deadlock. If at any point the vote reaches a deadlock that cannot be resolved by the means above or a tie would result in three or more options advancing to the third round, ties shall be broken by first preference, then second preference if required, and so on until either the tie is broken or all preferences are exhausted. If the deadlock still exists, then a second vote shall be called with only the non-eliminated options on the ballot (plus the option to re-open bids if it has been eliminated).
v) Single bid received. If there is only one bid, a straight first-past-the-post ballot between the bid and the option to re-open bids is held, with voters having a single ballot rather than a ranked choice vote.

Thoughts? (The Pres/VP section is unchanged bar the move to a sub-section, by the way.)

[Sylestone]

(Apologies for interrupting the discussion, but Baptism of Fire host announcement here.)

The Baptism of Fire group draw will be taking place at 8:30 pm (20:30) Wednesday, UTC time (or just over 18.5 hours from now).
Good luck to all participants!

[Kelssek]

ii) Second round. Otherwise, the bids placing first and second in first preference votes advance to the second round and all other bids are eliminated. If there is a tie for first or second place, all bids tied for that position advance to the second round, along with the option to re-open nominations. Ballots cast for eliminated bids are reallocated according to the next-highest valid preference indicated. If a bid receives a majority of votes after reallocation, it is declared the winner. If the option to re-open bids receives a majority, no bid shall be elected and the host bidding process shall be restarted.
iii) Third round. If no majority is reached at this point, a third round shall take place consisting of the two options receiving the most votes after the second round. In the event of a tie for first or second place at this stage which would otherwise mean more than two options going forward, ties are broken according to the deadlock rules outlined below. Votes for eliminated options are reallocated to the option with the highest preference which is still under consideration. After reallocation, the ballots are again counted. If a bid receives a majority of the ballots after reallocation, it is declared the winner. If both options are tied, the tie is broken according to the deadlock rules outlined below.
iv) Deadlock. If at any point the vote reaches a deadlock that cannot be resolved by the means above, or if a tie would result in three or more options advancing to the third round, ties shall be broken by first preferences, then second preferences if required, and so on until either the tie is broken or all preferences are exhausted. If the deadlock still exists, then a second vote shall be called with only the non-eliminated options on the ballot (plus the option to re-open bids if it has been eliminated).
v) Single bid received. If there is only one bid, it directly contests [the option to re-open bidding] with voters having a single ballot rather than a ranked choice vote. The option with more votes is the winner.

I think this wording is a bit clearer, I was having trouble understanding what was going on so this is my interpretation of what was intended. I assume the square brackets is what "the option" means?

EDIT: A couple of points on Legalese's proposal. First:

the Vice President shall do the honor;

Please specify what exactly the vice president will do here.

Second, I don't see anything in the current constitution on designating the interim president, who is supposed to be the fail-safe. I'm not comfortable with this proposal because of the lack of clarity as to who this person might be. Not that I'm anticipating something nefarious, but simply that if we reach this stage, the one person who decides the hosts had better be someone with a measure of trust and legitimacy to do so.

[Legalese]

EDIT: A couple of points on Legalese's proposal. First:

the Vice President shall do the honor;

Please specify what exactly the vice president will do here.

Point taken, edited the language to be clear that if the President is a bidder, the VP will cast a vote in that deadlock situation, unless they are unable to do so.

Second, I don't see anything in the current constitution on designating the interim president, who is supposed to be the fail-safe. I'm not comfortable with this proposal because of the lack of clarity as to who this person might be. Not that I'm anticipating something nefarious, but simply that if we reach this stage, the one person who decides the hosts had better be someone with a measure of trust and legitimacy to do so.

See the bolded below -- added a note to the amendment for reference pointing to that spot -- for the detail:

Constitution of the World Cup Committee

1.3 The Presidency

[blocktext]1.3.1 Appointment
i) Presidential terms shall last for three World Cups (eg 46-48, 49-51, 52-54, etc)
ii) Elections for the WCC President shall be held after every third World Cup, giving adequate preparation time for any hand-over to take place immediately upon completion (i.e. the World Cup and Cup of Harmony Finals) of the last Cup in the Presidential cycle.
ii) Any WCC user may nominate any one other user for the position and any user receiving more than two nominations will be considered a candidate.
iii) Any user can decline to receive nominations.
iv) If there is only one candidate for President, that candidate will become the President. Otherwise, the WCC will vote on which of the candidates should be the President immediately after the nomination process.
v) If the President is unable to fulfill his/her duties, then the interim President shall be the first available person of: the Vice-President, the candidates in the most recent presidential election (sorted by highest vote total), the members of the EWCC (sorted by earliest WC hosted), and the hosts of the Baptism of Fire tournament and Cup of Harmony (sorted by earliest tournament hosted). If two or more eligible successors are equal in any of these criteria, then they shall be sorted in alphabetical order.

Either way, the point was simply to keep the extremely rare case of a deadlock that requires presidential intervention, in a case where (for whatever reason) the President and VP are unable to break the deadlock, that the person designated to deal with it is the next in line, rather than whoever happens to be collecting the votes, should they be two different people.

[Legalese]

I know the amendment I proposed is over the threshold, and definitely support a vote on it, but would be willing to table it pending a vote on Kry's proposal, and if that passes, withdraw it. Seconding Kry's proposal as well -- I don't love the idea of a second vote for the deadlock, but it's not on my list of hills to die on, so to speak.

[Krytenia]

v) Single bid received. If there is only one bid, it directly contests [the option to re-open bidding] with voters having a single ballot rather than a ranked choice vote. The option with more votes is the winner.

I think this wording is a bit clearer, I was having trouble understanding what was going on so this is my interpretation of what was intended. I assume the square brackets is what "the option" means?

Good catch. I've amended point v) accordingly.

Just a note as well, my amendment would mean ROB can be eliminated after Round 2. My thinking is by this point if ROB lacks the voting power to advance, it's clear that the will of the electorate is not for bids to be re-opened.

[South Covello]

v) Single bid received. If there is only one bid, it directly contests [the option to re-open bidding] with voters having a single ballot rather than a ranked choice vote. The option with more votes is the winner.

I think this wording is a bit clearer, I was having trouble understanding what was going on so this is my interpretation of what was intended. I assume the square brackets is what "the option" means?

Good catch. I've amended point v) accordingly.

Just a note as well, my amendment would mean ROB can be eliminated after Round 2. My thinking is by this point if ROB lacks the voting power to advance, it's clear that the will of the electorate is not for bids to be re-opened.

I would explicitly clarify this but if that is done, I would support.

[Banija]

I am going to read through these proposed amendments here myself.

I will say though. I do think the fact that we weight Re-Open Nominations in the way we do (it can, essentially, only finish second or first because it can only be eliminated on the last ballot round) unnecessarily warps our voting system.

Ranked choice voting is a good system, but I Think the way we operate it can cause it to break down. I understand the rationale behind weighting RoN, but I think that it actually ends up inaccurately reflecting the will of the WCC.

Let's take this most recent vote, for example. 17 for Taeshan/Ethane, 16 for Valanora/Chromatika, 1 for RoN(and 1 abstention). 34 votes. The way our voting system is designed, we ended up with a 29-2 vote in favor of Taeshan/Ethane, an overwhelming majority that is not reflected in the actual WCC vote.

If we had been able to eliminate the RoN on the first ballot like we should have been, we would have had the following possible options.

RoN second preference is Taeshan/Ethane- An 18-16 majority in favor of Taeshan/Ethane

RoN second preference is Valanora/Chromatika- A 17-17 tie.

RoN no second preference- 17-16 majority in favor of Taeshan/Ethane(since now you have 33 votes).

All three of which would have been more accurate reflections of the will of the WCC than a 29-2 majority because we eliminated the second most popular option ahead of the third most popular option.

That's my two cents.

[Farfadillis]

At the heart of this is that ranked choice voting sucks. Like, it's mathematically provable. Asking every user whether they accept, are ambivalent towards, or outright reject every specific bid would be inherently fairer, and (I feel) would avoid pretty much all the problems that have been brought up. It can be modelled with a very basic -1, 0, 1 system and a bid wins if they have the highest score. RON wins if no bid manages to get a total of 0 or 1 (pick your cut-off). It wouldn't even be hard to tally votes with a -1/0/1 scale. If you have a tie, you can go, for example, for the least controversial bid (least number of rejections), or maybe for the EWCC vote. Plenty of fair options.

I think it would be best to give this option some thought before jumping straight into writing an amendment, lest inertia take hold of us.

[Zwangzug]

Farf, I don't want to be glib, but mathematically every voting system sucks. Whatever we go with should be workable for votes with four-plus bids and well as two. (Which to be clear, yours does, but different elections will have different circumstances and we need to plan ahead for that.)

[Northwest Kalactin]

What if we use the EWCC vote as a tiebreaker, it would probably give us the best overall host, because the EWCC is full of folks experienced in WC hosting.

[Blouman Empire]

For those of you with a very long memory (seven years, I reckon) - the Meerkats are back.

It has been 12 years since these were created, for instance (we have got better at them since):

Welcome back!

You're doing new ones are you?

[Blouman Empire]

What if we use the EWCC vote as a tiebreaker, it would probably give us the best overall host, because the EWCC is full of folks experienced in WC hosting.

I like this idea, in the event of a tie of the WCC vote the EWCC will vote in a second vote between the two options that tied

[South Covello]

In response to Banija's point about removing Re-open bids, consider the following scenario:

Two bids, one with a bizarre double-Casaran plus quadruple elimination qualifying format and one with a conventional format but by N00biN00bistan and Super N00biN00bistan. On the first round, ballots are as folows:

Bizarro World Bid: 10
Super N00bin00bistan/N00bin00bistan: 9
Re-open Bids: 8

Let's suppose we remove the bid by the n00bs and 8 of them go for Re-open bids because they hate the bizarre format and only voted for the n00bs so we didn't get that but could actually have a World Cup and the ninth one actually votes for that format. Now we get the following:

Bizzaro World Bid: 11
Re-open Bids: 16

Let's further suppose that of the 10 who voted for the Bizarro one, nine of them had Re-open bids next because they didn't want a n00b hosted World Cup, but preferred the bizarre format to no World Cup host at all. This means that of the 27 voters, 18 preferred no host at all to the n00b bid and 16 preferred it to the bizarre format bid, yet we're eliminating Re-open bids under Banija's proposal which means one of those bids is going to win despite a majority of voters being opposed to it to the point where they'd rather there be no host at all.

Re-open bids isn't really voting for an option, rather it signifies "This is the end of my ballot" and that you do not want any option you didn't rank above it. Essentially it's equivalent to a None of the Above option. While I'm not aware of any RL elections which use both RCV and a NOTA option, I'm aware of several which use multiple rounds and NOTA, which is functionally equivalent except the later rounds don't happen instantly but on a separate ballot, and in those cases NOTA remains through the final round. The only time I've seen those run into issues was when NOTA and the one remaining candidate finished tied and some idiot wrote in himself for a final total of 490-490-1 or something like that and nobody knew who to eliminate, but since we don't allow write-ins (nor should we) that's not really an issue. Of course, said idiot could have decided not to vote at all if he were banned from writing in himself, creating a 490-490 tie, but that still just proves we need some way of breaking ties, it's no different than a tie between two candidates/bids.

As for the final margin, it was correct as to what it indicated, 33 out of 35 voters preferred the winning bid to re-opening bidding, it was not suggesting that the bid had overwhelming support as a first choice.