I have been toying with idea of games that show the inefficiencies of FPTP and benefits of PR.
FPTP stylization in boardgame
captures that the "post" in FPTP is accidental and that winner is determined by plurality, not by any logical test of proportionality.
This exercise mimics a general election electing five members.
each player is a political party, trying to get as many of the five seats as possible.
Each player is given a suit of cards (2 to 10) from a common playing-card deck.
Four face cards (in total) are given to the players, as evenly as possible.
The player's decks are shuffled separately.
Player take turns.
Each turn the player puts a card off their deck on to the table in front of them.
When a face card comes up, that ends the count process for that seat.
The face card is worth 1 to the player's point score.
(If any player not have at last one card showing at this point, let him take a card at random from his deck.)
The candidate with the most votes at this point (no matter whether majority or not) is elected to the seat.
a marker of some sort is given to the successful player.
all players' cards that are showing are moved to each player's discard pile.
and each player starts new count with zero.
The game resumes with the next player.
one seat will remain when the last card is turned over. The player with the most votes at that point (no matter whether majority or not) takes the seat.
a marker of some sort is given to the successful player to mark who won the seat.
Record on paper who won how many of the five seats.
play again to show illogic of FPTP
to give idea of unfairness of plurality and how erratic FPTP is, do it again.
each player shuffles their cards, and then one by one turns over a card. Again when face card shows, fill a seat.
Record on paper who won how many of the five seats.
likely the election result will be different this time, as cards will come into players' hands at different times and face cards will emerge after different number of turns. This mimics how under FPTP, a slight change in election district boundaries changes the election result.
But each player has the same cards as before, and if the election system was logical, the same result would occur each time the game is played.
compared to PR stylization using same game
each player keeps same cards as in the FPTP games.
again five seats to fill,
Again, in turns, each player puts a card off their deck on to the table in front of them.
But this time the face card doesn't indicate seat filled. (it still means 1 point though)
A quota is derived, based on number of players:
2 players quota is 18
3 players quota is 27
4 players quota is 36
and whenever a player collects that number of points, he takes a seat.
Cards used to elect that seat are put in used pile. Player makes note on paper in front of him that whatever points he had over quota is carried over to the new line-up of cards.
The other players keep their cards in front of them as the new count begins. They do not go into discard pile.
The game continues until every player has showed all their cards and the fifth seat is filled.
if seats still remaining to fill when cards are all exposed, they are filled based on plurality (relative lead).
==
Do it again and see how consistent the results are under P.R.
Each player keeps same cards, but shuffles them.
and then turn by turn a card is turned over, as each player tries for quotas and victory.
(There may be some variation from game to game but basically under such a logical proportional system, the election results will be mostly same each time.
And likely the way seats are filled is different from how seats were filled under the FPTP method.
=====================================
Different idea:
Active game presenting gerrymandering and varying election systems
a card is given out to each kid
the card shows party ID -- Deer or Rabbit
card can also indicate 6 voting blocks: deer A to C, rabbit D to H
(party distribution (Deer or Rabbit, A to H) is known and the expected proportional result is known)
(perhaps by quick examination of cards not picked up)
card also bears a number inside a shape and a letter.
number ranges from 1 to 399.
(the digit in the one's places ranges from 1 to 5, in case five districts are required.)
the information on the card can be used to make up electoral districts -- even/odd, size of number, the shape, ad described below
FPTP tried in different districting
results and number of effective votes recorded in each contest
two districts
some numbers are even, some odd. (makes two districts)
three districts
a third of cards have number in square, a third number in circle, a third number in triangle.
(makes three districts)
variety of four-district schemes
(five-district schemes would be better but with classroom size of about 30, five districts might produce ties in vote tallies)
four districts by size of number
a quarter of cards have number between 1 and 99, a quarter 101-199, a quarter 200-299, a quarter 300-399 (makes four districts)
(the digit in the one's place on the card ranges from 1 to 5, in case five districts are required.)
four districts by last number
so numbers 1 to 4 can be used to compose different districting of four districts.
four districts by last number changed by 5 number kids.
kids with cards with numbers ending in 5 added in by where they are sitting or something, changing districts once again.
year has four seasons -- makes four groups
kids with birthdays in each season (winter, spring, summer, autumn) group together.
(cards not used for this)
month has about four weeks -- makes four groups
kids with birthdays in each week of their birthday month (dates 1-7, 8-14, 15-21, 22-31) are grouped together.
(cards not used for this)
each FPTP "election", results and number of effective votes recorded - likely lots of weird results.
Multi-winner at-large contests
opens door to fairness and more certainty.
whichever animal or letter has more should win more seats.
kids compose 6 voting blocks based on letter on their card: A-H
three-winner at-large classroom-wide contest
which three of A to H wins the three seats using single voting (SNTV)?
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
three-winner contest allowing ranked votes using Deer and Rabbit parties
back-up preferences according to party lines:
Deer votes on transfer going to Deer candidates
Rabbit votes on transfer going to rabbit candidates
(kids can gather in groups representing how they vote)
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
three-winner contest allowing ranked votes and six voting blocks.
based on past results, each voting block puts up one or more candidates
back-up preferences according to letter (A to H) lines,
if letter runs out, then vote goes to any Deer or Rabbit candidate.
(kids can gather in groups around their preferred candidate, with group having to move as candidate is eliminated or surpus votes transferred.
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
five-winner at-large classroom-wide contest and six voting blocks
which five of A to H wins the three seats using single voting (SNTV)?
(kids can gather in groups around their preferred candidate, with group having to move as candidate is eliminated or surplus votes transferred.
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
five-winner contest allowing ranked votes and six voting blocks (A to H).
based on past results, each voting block puts up one or more candidates
(kids can gather in groups around their preferred candidate, with group having to move as candidate is eliminated or surplus votes transferred.
quota derived.
back-up preferences produce transfers along letter (A to H) lines.
if letter candidates runs out, then vote goes to other Deer or Rabbit candidate, as appropriate.
results recorded, number of effective votes recorded.
something like that ...
=============================
Comments