Search:

[url]https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc-new-york-city-ranked-choice-voting-system-andrew-yang-aoc-ocasio-cortez[/url]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/nyc...-ocasio-cortez

NYC is going to start using using a form of bird voting!

NYC is going to start using using a form of bird voting!

I know I came off a bit harsh, but you're still awesome Ganelon <3

I know I came off a bit harsh, but you're still awesome Ganelon <3

[QUOTE=Ganelon;817180]It really depends as with most things. Overall, plurality+majority/pure majority are the best I believe. As in, they work in lots of different setups. Some election systems, like condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided, but to me it seems as though a voting system like that is quite difficult to analyze correctly (simply because of how many variables come into play).

I would say pure plurality+majority is not only the best one overall, but also the most balanced voting system. It allows for town to pressure suspects, whilst also making it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns, and it seems quite intuitive, unlike a Condorcet-style system, which has a depth to it (I think the depth is actually n-1, which is massive compared to plurality which has a depth of 1).

I do feel like anonymous voting would be interesting if (possibly) quite scum-sided. I fear that anonymous voting wouldn't really be that different from normal voting, as (under normal circumstances) town members have little reason to lie about their vote (and should indeed announce who it is they are voting for) and so would (at least at first) collapse into a public vote. It would only be at the very end that the voting system would start showing its teeth (or in one of those rare setups involving multiple, relatively powerful scum factions).[/QUOTE]

"condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided"
I'll go ahead and beat the dead horse and say that condorcet isn't townsided. Majority is mafia sided.

"[condorcet] is quite difficult to analyze correctly"
Not true. You literally see everyone's preferences, and good players will say why they have their preferences in that order. If it's too difficult, one could ignore the list, and just look at the top of the list. Now you're back to analyzing the good ol' 'majority lynch' way.

"[non condorcet setups] allows for town to pressure suspects"
This implies that Condorcet doesn't pressure suspects. This is not true. It actually allows town to pressure [b]ALL[/b] the scummiest people. If people don't feel pressured because they're on the top of the list, they're really just playing stupidly. Which would be equivalent to not bowing down to pressure in majority, even though they're at like L-2 or something. Others may say that the #1 spot moves a lot during the course of a day, but I'd counter and say that the top 3 scummiest people generally will be dead by end of day.

"[non condorcet setups] make it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns"
In other words, hosts need to make it harder for town to vote, which basically sounds like vote disenfranchisement to me. Which really is scum sided. And then people wonder why playing citizen is shit.

Originally Posted by Ganelon

It really depends as with most things. Overall, plurality+majority/pure majority are the best I believe. As in, they work in lots of different setups. Some election systems, like condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided, but to me it seems as though a voting system like that is quite difficult to analyze correctly (simply because of how many variables come into play).

I would say pure plurality+majority is not only the best one overall, but also the most balanced voting system. It allows for town to pressure suspects, whilst also making it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns, and it seems quite intuitive, unlike a Condorcet-style system, which has a depth to it (I think the depth is actually n-1, which is massive compared to plurality which has a depth of 1).

I do feel like anonymous voting would be interesting if (possibly) quite scum-sided. I fear that anonymous voting wouldn't really be that different from normal voting, as (under normal circumstances) town members have little reason to lie about their vote (and should indeed announce who it is they are voting for) and so would (at least at first) collapse into a public vote. It would only be at the very end that the voting system would start showing its teeth (or in one of those rare setups involving multiple, relatively powerful scum factions).

"condorcet, are very interesting (and some would say fair), and somewhat townsided"
I'll go ahead and beat the dead horse and say that condorcet isn't townsided. Majority is mafia sided.

"[condorcet] is quite difficult to analyze correctly"
Not true. You literally see everyone's preferences, and good players will say why they have their preferences in that order. If it's too difficult, one could ignore the list, and just look at the top of the list. Now you're back to analyzing the good ol' 'majority lynch' way.

"[non condorcet setups] allows for town to pressure suspects"
This implies that Condorcet doesn't pressure suspects. This is not true. It actually allows town to pressure ALL the scummiest people. If people don't feel pressured because they're on the top of the list, they're really just playing stupidly. Which would be equivalent to not bowing down to pressure in majority, even though they're at like L-2 or something. Others may say that the #1 spot moves a lot during the course of a day, but I'd counter and say that the top 3 scummiest people generally will be dead by end of day.

"[non condorcet setups] make it relatively easy for scum to hide in the voting patterns"
In other words, hosts need to make it harder for town to vote, which basically sounds like vote disenfranchisement to me. Which really is scum sided. And then people wonder why playing citizen is shit.

I just realized 'best' could mean many different things.

most fair?
most interesting?
etc.

I just realized 'best' could mean many different things.

most fair?
most interesting?
etc.

Players being passive because majority isn't enabled sounds like a player problem. Not a vote system problem.

I'd also argue that having no majority more easily allows you to have competing trains. Which is good for town.

Players being passive because majority isn't enabled sounds like a player problem. Not a vote system problem.

I'd also argue that having no majority more easily allows you to have competing trains. Which is good for town.

Condorcet is 100% hands down the best voting system. Insta-lynch 51% end game is archaic, and only being able to submit a single preference doesn't let you push multiple trains.

More thoughts:

[url]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/42595-S-FM-Condorcet-Cop9er-GAME?p=739399&viewfull=1#post739399[/url]

[url]https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showthread.php/43420-Condorcet-Voting-EXPLAINED[/url]!

Condorcet is 100% hands down the best voting system. Insta-lynch 51% end game is archaic, and only being able to submit a single preference doesn't let you push multiple trains.

More thoughts:

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...l=1#post739399

https://www.sc2mafia.com/forum/showth...ting-EXPLAINED!