Trololololol. Technically, I
do have a couple of the records.
I didn't bother posting this earlier:
During
Bauman's election, the competition averaged
5.6 votes each.
During
Evans' election, the competition averaged
9 votes each.
During
Nordell's election, the competition averaged
4.75 votes each.
During
Saylor's election, the competition averaged
5.5 votes each.
During all these elections combined, the competition averaged
6.21 votes each.
As you can see, I overwhelmed my competition a bit more effectively than some others.
I have another, but you have to read into the mathematics a bit more, and it's
hardly worth it. But if you've got a good mathematical head on you and further interest in the fascination of our elections, you can try to follow along.
So here's the obvious information, from which we will form a couple new tidbits.
For starters, let's find out how each election would turn out if we all had exactly the same pool of votes to work from. First, we have to calculate our average votes: (58*86*40*45)/4=
57.25 cast votesThen we have to figure out how each of the votes we got would correspond to this average. I'll spare the math for this one, but it basically looks like this.
Brian Bauman won this Fall 2011 election with
37.5 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
66% of the overall majority against
3 other candidates.
Ryan Evans won the Spring 2011 election with
19.97 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
35% of the overall majority against
6 other candidates.
Pietre Nordell won the Fall 2010 election with
30.05 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
53% of the overall majority against
4 other candidates.
Lemmy Saylor won the Spring 2010 election with
41.98 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
73% of the overall majority against
2 other candidates.
Now, as you can see, Lemmy holds the new record for how many votes, but that's actually irrelevant since, now that all cast votes are equal, everyone corresponds directly to their majority %, which Lemmy was leading in anyway.
So with all 4 candidates now working on an average "cast votes", we can do a couple cool things to figure use "other candidates" as a balancer. Obviously we can't predict how other candidates would have affected the ballot easily, but we can still fudge around some numbers.
For starters, we can take the results and average out each candidate's "share" of the votes. That is, to say, we can multiply the winning vote figure by the amount of defeated candidates and divide it by the total candidates (which, in this case, is just amount of defeated candidates + 1). Now, you wouldn't
think this would do much but... well, you'll see...
Bauman: (37.5*3)/4 =
28.13 vote share. (49%)
Evans: (19.97*6)/7 =
17.11 vote share. (30%)
Nordell: (30.05*4)/5 =
24.05 vote share. (42%)
Saylor: (41.98*2)/3 =
27.98 vote share. (49%)
First off, ignore the percentages I included by the side as they relate to the original majority percentages; they're not weighted correctly, they're there only to illustrate the gap between candidates under THIS system set to the 57.25 average total cast votes.
So as you can see, Lemmy lost some ground here. While it's true he had the 73% majority, adding an extra candidate to the mix allowed Brian's 66% to be made up for; overcoming an extra candidate > 7%. You can also see that I started catching up to both by having 2 and 1 extra candidates over Lemmy and Brian, respectively, but Ryan had difficulty coming into close range just because his initial majority percentage was so low, and there weren't enough candidates to compensate. This is accurate, since Ryan had the most powerful competition of any of the 4 elected admin in this example.
Anyway, if this doesn't work for you, since, admittedly, it's kind of random, we can do something a bit more grounded.
In this next example, we'll pretend everyone had 6 opposing candidates in their election, since that's the highest. As such, everyone's new votes (as related to the average cast votes) are divisible by a "multiplier" (except Ryan, who has a divisor of 1).
Bauman: 3 opposing candidates (2x divisor to 6)
Evans: 6 opposing candidates (1x divisor to 6)
Nordell: 4 opposing candidates (1.5x divisor to 6)
Saylor: 2 opposing candidates (3x divisor to 6)
Now as you can see, this is going to be a much more dramatic impact, and we're really assuming some tough competition here from other candidates.
So next we take each candidates averaged winning votes and see how they're affected by their divisors.
Bauman: 37.50 votes / 2 divisor =
18.75 vote share.
Evans = 19.97 votes / 1 divisor =
19.97 vote share.
Nordell = 30.05 votes / 1.5 divisor =
20.03 vote share.
Saylor = 41.98 votes / 3 divisor =
13.99 vote share.
And so, hypothetically, vote share can translate to this:
Brian Bauman won this Fall 2011 election with
18.75 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
32.76% of the overall majority against
6 other candidates.
Ryan Evans won the Spring 2011 election with
19.97 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
34.88% of the overall majority against
6 other candidates.
Pietre Nordell won the Fall 2010 election with
20.03 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
35% of the overall majority against
6 other candidates.
Lemmy Saylor won the Spring 2010 election with
13.99 votes of the
57.25 cast votes, to win with
24.44% of the overall majority against
6 other candidates.
According to this scale, Lemmy, who had the highest majority percentage initially, is actually in the weakest vote share and weakest percentage in the hypothetical situation. Why, you ask? He got that vote percentage against only 2 other individuals and, for that matter, individuals which weren't necessarily effective as competition for him. This is assuming more individuals join the fray that are effective challengers and, while Lemmy still wins (he is pulling 14 votes of the 57, after all, with 6 other people running alongside him, by which the average would be 7 rival votes per competitor), he has a much harder time because we added harder, hypothetical opponents.
Meanwhile, I, on the other hand, am only given 2 extra competitors, allowing me a narrow margin over Evans, who is given no one else to run against, who has a narrow margin over Bauman, who is given 3 more challengers. We all still win our elections with 6 rival votes per competitor, which is about equal to Lemmy's opponents getting 7.
So while this scale looks unfair, initially, especially to Lemmy, you actually get to see that we all get treated somewhat fairly by having opponents who amass 6-7 votes each; not enough to win, but enough to split the votes. Still think that's unfair? It all checks out; remember this?
So by now, you've probably forgotten exactly why you read all that.
Well, here's why:
I, very narrowly, have the highest vote share against averaged vote counts and equally distributed hypothetical competition. Also of note, my actual competition had less share of the votes on average. Fascinating, no?
/massivesmartjoke
/trollpost
/egotrip
/amidoinitrite?
(Also, I understood Reeder's initial post to mean that it's interesting that, despite having a "revolutionary" game, the election was actually rather simple. Still, this was just fun to write.
)
