U.S. Presidential Elections Survivor - 1860 IS THE SURVIVOR !

[Antonio the Sixth]

Well, guys, before we leave this and let this topic die, I'd like to know a last thing.

First of all, I'd like to know if you liked this survivor, and, if you want, to give me some advises about what I should change/not change.

Then, you can, if you wish, give me your ideal top 5 (with elections ranked from 1 t 5). Yeah, I know you already did, but now you cann pick all the elections. Give us the 5 elections you'd most have wanted to win at the beginning of the survivor !

[Vazdul (Formerly Chairman of the Communist Party of Ontario)]

I liked the survivor. I found some of the special rules very interesting. As for my top 5, its a very difficult decision. Even during the survivor I was somewhat inconsistent in my voting. My top 5 would probably be 1860, 1960, 1968, 2008, and 1912, though not necessarily in that order.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Yay!

My top 5:

1. 1860
2. 1980
3. 1932
4. 2000
5. 1912

[big bad fab]

Your rule with the 100 points isn't working very well. The amount of points and of freedom to allocate them is far too high. It was already the case in the PS "présidentiables" survivor.

Allocating 10 points at most is a good idea though, with some limits (no more than 5 or 6 points for one guy; voting for at least 3 guys, etc).

And the groups weren't very well balanced. Of course, it's always difficult.
BTW, you said you'd tell us why and how you pick those groups... We want to know !

Otherwise, it's classical and well managed. No problem.

My top 5 ?
Well, I hadn't a unique favourite, but it would have been between
1948, 1968, 2000 and 1912, probably in that order.
After that, 1896 and... 2008 (because of very interesting primaries on BOTH sides) would have been tight for the 5th position.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Wel, yeah, the 100 points rule sucks and I won't use it anymore, even though it could have been more interesting with less 80/90% votes.

As for the groups, of course I'm going t disclose it now !

The groups formation is based on the results of the results of the Special round (the one when you had to give your top 5). But to rank each election, I used, instead of approval voting (each election in the top 5 gets one point), the Borda method (ie giving 5 points to an election when it's in the first place, 4 points when it's in the second, etc...). The results were :
1968 : 21
1912 : 20
1960 : 18
1932 : 16
1980 : 12
1948 : 12
1824 : 8
1896 : 7
2008 : 7
1992 : 6
1796 : 5
1976 : 3

Based on these results, I created four pots of three elections each.

Pot 1 (favorite elections)
1968
1912
1932

Pot 2 (apreciated elections)
1948
1980
1824

Pot 3 (poorly apreciated elections)
1896
2008
1992

Pot 4 (least favorite elections)
1796
1976
1884

Each group had to consist in one election from each pot, in oder to make it fairly balanced. So I made those groups :

Group 1
1968 (from pot 1)
1980 (from pot 2)
1992 (from pot 3)
1976 (from pot 4)

Group 2
1912 (from pot 1)
1948 (from pot 2)
2008 (from pot 3)
1796 (from pot 4)

Group 3
1932 (from pot 1)
1824 (from pot 2)
1896 (from pot 3)
1884 (from pot 4)

My main criterion to put determinate elections from different pots in the same group was mainly chronological coherence. Thus, I grouped most of recent-times elections in the group 1 (having to choose, from pot 3, between 1992 and 2008, I chose 1992 because it was closer to 1980 and the others), the oldest in group 3 (I could have put 1912 instead of 1932, but, to be honest, my goal was to get both 1932 and 1948 qualified for the top 5 - as a result they were both eleiminated ), and the remaining in the group 2.