Election Discussion Thread

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

I am obliged to stick by the letter of the law. Even a one second difference would be too much.

As for the booth - it remains open, and will close 72 hours after it opened, as the constitution requires.

[Keystone Phil]

Rules are rules.

I am obliged to stick by the letter of the law. Even a one second difference would be too much.

As for the booth - it remains open, and will close 72 hours after it opened, as the constitution requires.

As I clearly stated, I understand and totally agree. I'm just reminding you that you tried to avoid keeping the booth open.

[Hatman 🍁]

Such a small difference is clearly intentional on Snowguy's part.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

RodPresident does not meet activity requirements.
Snowguy716 edited his post outside of the 20 minute window.
Teddy did not vote for any valid candidates.

All three ballots are marked as "cast but invalid"

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

All other cast ballots are Valid; including, since I am presuming he is curious, Phil's ballot.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

VALID WRITE INS DUE TO DECLARATION:
none

VALID WRITE INS DUE TO WRITING SELF IN:
feeblepizza
J. J.


Due to the complexity of counting this particular election; I will do so when I get home (I am at work) and have access to my second monitor. I've done all the prep-work and hopefully the counts should not take very long.

I expect to certify the election by 12 noon; which is in 9 and one half hours. I hope to have it done by 9am.

[Teddy (IDS Legislator)]

what a day for the subway to break down... $45 on a taxi >.<

[Antonio the Sixth]

Re-doing the election math just because I like doing that.

Anyways, on count, Lief and Duke have reached the quota with 20 and 18 votes respectively. So, here are some interesting numbers.

Lief transfers : 20 votes for a value of 0.15 :
- Bacon King : 16 => 2.4
- Junkie : 3 => 0.45
- Exhausted : 1 => 0.15

AHDuke transfers : 18 votes for a value of 0.056 :
- Junkie : 13 => 0.722
- Dallasfan : 4 => 0.222
- Bacon King : 1 => 0.056

There is no other transfer from a candidate reaching the quota. What a boring election.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

[Antonio the Sixth]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

Elections are just different, comparing them and trying to find "safe seats" and "competitive seats" makes no sense. But you had candidates who were losing at some point who eventually won, and reciprocally. Ben was winning before Lief's late surge. Junkie almost won while he was initially being trounced.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

Elections are just different, comparing them and trying to find "safe seats" and "competitive seats" makes no sense. But you had candidates who were losing at some point who eventually won, and reciprocally. Ben was winning before Lief's late surge. Junkie almost won while he was initially being trounced.

I agree completely, but you see thats what the anti-Regional Senate seat folks do everytime and yet the intellectual dishonesty is not only not criticisized, it is applauded. The only way possible to argue that 1. Regional seats are not competative, and 2. that they should be replaced is to compare them to the At-Large seats. Otherwise both should be replaced.

As I recall Dallasfan almost did a Pat Toomey in the NE race but ran short of voters to continue his surge. Both the A-bob and Dallas came within a hair in both races.

[Хahar 🤔]

Regional Senate seats are for the most part non-competitive. In at-large seats, every candidate has a chance to lose.

[tpfkaw]

Regional Senate seats are for the most part non-competitive. In at-large seats, every candidate has a chance to lose.

BS.  Either you get enough party zombies to vote you automatically in or you have to run around playing "let's make a deal."  The results are practically preordained.

[HappyWarrior]

Regional Senate seats are for the most part non-competitive. In at-large seats, every candidate has a chance to lose.

Tell that to my last election lol

[ilikeverin]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

Elections are just different, comparing them and trying to find "safe seats" and "competitive seats" makes no sense. But you had candidates who were losing at some point who eventually won, and reciprocally. Ben was winning before Lief's late surge. Junkie almost won while he was initially being trounced.

I agree completely, but you see thats what the anti-Regional Senate seat folks do everytime and yet the intellectual dishonesty is not only not criticisized, it is applauded. The only way possible to argue that 1. Regional seats are not competative, and 2. that they should be replaced is to compare them to the At-Large seats. Otherwise both should be replaced.

I did it once, and found there was a significant difference in competitivity between them.  Your turn.

[Southern Senator North Carolina Yankee]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

Elections are just different, comparing them and trying to find "safe seats" and "competitive seats" makes no sense. But you had candidates who were losing at some point who eventually won, and reciprocally. Ben was winning before Lief's late surge. Junkie almost won while he was initially being trounced.

I agree completely, but you see thats what the anti-Regional Senate seat folks do everytime and yet the intellectual dishonesty is not only not criticisized, it is applauded. The only way possible to argue that 1. Regional seats are not competative, and 2. that they should be replaced is to compare them to the At-Large seats. Otherwise both should be replaced.

I did it once, and found there was a significant difference in competitivity between them.  Your turn.

"But you can't compare the two" - Antonio

Your move.

[Antonio the Sixth]

How many seats were competative in October, again?

Junkie and Ben stood a serious chance of winning. Wormy could have had a slight one too. I think that's competitive enough.

Oh sure.

Elections are just different, comparing them and trying to find "safe seats" and "competitive seats" makes no sense. But you had candidates who were losing at some point who eventually won, and reciprocally. Ben was winning before Lief's late surge. Junkie almost won while he was initially being trounced.

I agree completely, but you see thats what the anti-Regional Senate seat folks do everytime and yet the intellectual dishonesty is not only not criticisized, it is applauded. The only way possible to argue that 1. Regional seats are not competative, and 2. that they should be replaced is to compare them to the At-Large seats. Otherwise both should be replaced.

As I recall Dallasfan almost did a Pat Toomey in the NE race but ran short of voters to continue his surge. Both the A-bob and Dallas came within a hair in both races.

I more or less agree with you, you just can't compare At-Large and Regional elections because thet just don't work the same way. But that's not to say one sort of election isn't more competitive than the other. As you've said, last october's elections represented a peak of competitivity compared to what the elections use to be. So, how many seats were competitive during this "peak" ? 2. Basically, that's also the usual number of people that could have lost in At-Large election. Not as impresive as you seemed to point out...

In any case, this isn't (by far) the most important argument against Regional seats. Fairness is the big problem.

[bgwah]

^ Yeah, I mean really... I think most people predicted each major party would win at least one seat. There wasn't really any question about 4/5 seats. The biggest difference is that we nationalized the competition for the fifth seat, I guess.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Now, time for some graphs !


Evolution of the votes for each candidate hour by hour :



Evolution of the % of votes for each candidate hour by hour :



Evolution of the share of each party by hour :



Final election results, count by count :

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

nice graphs, V!

looks like we got us some competitive parties here.

[California8429]

Who did the maps by region last time?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Who did the maps by region last time?

I just like wasting my time making colored pics related to Atlasia.