The Last Post Game!!!!

[Swatopluk]

Political 'abstinence only'?

Last _{not comprehensive} Post

[Griffin NoName]

Un-voting would be better than abstinence.

Last Post

[Swatopluk]

Negative votes would likely get used strategically against anyone challenging the status quo.

Last Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Does it make a difference? Those who abstain do so more than anything else due to apathy.

Last un-voting sounds even more democratic than voting Post

[Swatopluk]

The Big Parties would unite to use parts of their base to negatively vote on small parties and heretics in their own ranks.
A dangerous tool though. If handled badly it could become a MAD scenario leaving only extremists. It would always be a gamble how many votes should be targeted at the enemy and how many are needed to maintain the power base. Lower effect in proportional representation but potentiall deadly in 'winner takes all'.
More interesting even would be two votes, one positive, one negative.

Last _{could mean zero net votes for every candidate} Post

[Griffin NoName]

Zero net votes is about what we had in the last election.

Last Post

[Swatopluk]

Because people are/were disgusted with both (post)Blairites and Tories?

Last Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

The Big Parties would unite to use parts of their base to negatively vote on small parties and heretics in their own ranks.

This would only work if the big party in question doesn't have competition from another big party, IOW if you have a one party dictatorship it would virtually eliminate any minority party representation, but the general result would be the same as they would have complete control over the legislature anyway.

Last _{would you really risk legitimate for votes to push againstvotes, if someone else has a legitimate challenge against you?} Post

[Swatopluk]

Would be a nice excersise in maneuvering and bluffing. The trick would be to get the other side to waste the votes. And to get the minor groups that have no chance of winning themselves to use their negative votes against your opponent. Consider this: Many voters dislike all choices but love to vote against certain guys. They may not be willing to vote FOR you but could be goaded into voting AGAINST your most dangerous rival.

Last _{better to vote against the greater evil than voting for the lesser} Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

But as long as that is a legitimate voter choice I don't see how is it a problem to vote against.

Last _{I'm one of those people} Post

[Swatopluk]

In my estimate the result would be nothing that realistically represented the will of a majority. It could only work with a majority of voters using their heads and some degree of analytical thought. Compare the 'compromise' of dividing the cake with one side proposing 50:50 and the other 100:0, yielding 75% for the unreasonable side.

Last _{and that's not even considering one side not taking 'yes' for an answer} Post

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

Erm, is there a place where the will of the majority is represented realistically?

Last _{without trampling the voices of the minority?} Post

[Swatopluk]

Scandinavia usually does a tolerable job there.

Otherwise, why should we make it even worse with a voting game that can be rigged even more easily?

Last _{the more complicated the game the easier it is to game} Post

----

Btw, game. How about this one?
Each player gets forty cards consisting of four colours with the numbers from 1 to 10.
In each round each player can play (hidden at first) up to four cards. the value is calculated thus: add numbers of  cards of same colour then multiply the sums of all colours. E.g. Red2, Red4, Yellow6, Blue3 => (2+4)*6*3=108. The player with the highest result collects the cards played by the other players in this round. If two have the same higest result, their cards get discarded and the take is decided between the remaining players. A player that has no cards left is out. When all cards are played (or only one player has cards left) the game ends and the players count their takes (simple sum of all numbers independent of colour). The player with the highest sum wins. Again, if two or more have the same highest sum total they cancel each other out and the winner is the next in line.

[Sibling Zono (anon1mat0)]

To make it interesting you have X seconds to do the math or you lose the hand, and if the number you give is wrong you get penalized with losing twice the cards.

Last _{5 seconds to lose} Post

[Swatopluk]

It will be difficult enough to hold 40 cards.

Last Post